Lively

Heh. I don't want to frighten you, but I doubt this is going to go away any time soon. As long as there are still hordes of overreacting man-children, you can bet that these conversations will still be needed.

Also, in regards to this topic, here's the response straight from the horse's mouth:

People who think this quote is damning are showing themselves to have a very limited understanding of language. Also, in my experience, some people who tell you that they're slavish disciples of reason and logic are actually just telling you that they have a borderline autistic, stunted sense of context and meaning.

I'm a film lover, but I'm not a fan of 90% of what Hollywood thinks movies should be like. So, depending on when you catch me, I might tell you very different things about my opinion of the movie industry.

So I noticed the old "/spawn" command doesn't work. What's the new cool way to fast-travel, or are we stuck in the dark ages again?

Feels good doesn't it?

It bears repeating, though, that criticism isn't the same thing as censorship. There are a lot of people here that don't seem to get that. The film industry gets a lot more of this type of discussion, with far less conspiracy-theory man-baby whining. Forget "checking your privilege", how about a reality check? No one is coming to take away your trashy games. They'll still be there, hopefully alongside a greater amount of thoughtful content for those who want it.

Also, there's nothing illegal, and nothing necessarily bad about exploitative imagery, I just wish creators would be more honest about it sometimes.

They could say, for example: "Yeah Cortana? Totally a pornographic model with crazy luscious hips that could smother a horse, that's totally on purpose". I really don't buy the spin about making her seem vulnerable, you're meant to drool over her like a hungry animal (not that there's anything wrong with that ;)

There seems to be a common argument that those who want stories and images of women that are less exploitative must be sex-negative prudes. I really don't think that's the case much of the time; one can like the nastiest most degrading porn imaginable, but still want to watch a drama where the characters are treated like normal human beings and not with a leering camera.

(Speaking hypothetically of course, wink wink, nudge nudge).

If you think that's a contradiction, I suggest thinking harder, you'll get there.

He's completely within his rights to say what he wants, and no one is making him apologize, but other people are completely free to criticize him and share their opinion with others. What he chooses to do with that criticism is up to him; he can ignore it, he can try to make it better, or even make it worse if he wants to. Criticism isn't the same thing as censorship.

Whether he likes it or not, he's a public figure, and a very powerful one within the gaming community, and all this comes with the territory.

It's worth pointing out that it was a pretty small group who reacted negatively to the original comic, the controversy was more about how dismissive Mike was to the idea that anyone might be hurt by it.

My impression of the backlash was more about being "anti-rape victim" than being "anti-women", but rape victims happen to be predominantly female (according to Wikipedia the split in the U.S. is approximately 91% vs. 9%), so you're more likely to hear from women who have been raped then men.

For the record I think comparing Mike to Rush Limbaugh is unfair. Rush Limbaugh is a poisonous, horrible excuse for a human being, while Mike is just kind of awkward, inarticulate, and not completely aware of how his words affect others.

Also, John Williams may be stretching the definition of "classical", but I'm pretty sure his stuff will be remembered in a century right alongside Copland and Gershwin as an essential American composer (unlike film composer hacks like Hans Zimmer).