PassiveKaerenai

I agree but please do not conflate censorship and condemnation. No one is arguing that such media needs to be banned, nonetheless everyone has the right to decide whether such material should be encouraged or discouraged. The implicit ethical responsibility of a critic is the most important part of the job. If a piece of media appears to be in poor taste then it ought to be discussed and criticised. Please read the article, it's actually a rather cogent analysis of something undeniably 'problematic', though ambiguous.

For what it's worth, I found the use of perspective particularly offputting. Scary, yes, but it's reprehensible to use the visual motifs of a rape scene in the service of a cheap scare.

Good point. Let's change 'you might just be an asshole' to 'I think you need to re-evaluate your position as stemming, not from a desire for scientific and grammatical accuracy, but from a latent antipathy towards those whose language of self-identification conflicts with the terms of identification familiar and acceptable to your own white male cisgender worldview.'

I didn't mean my comment to be passive-aggressive. I meant it to be as direct as possible. I didn't post it as a response to a particular user, because I did not want it to be abusive. I didn't write paragraphs of text, because I felt my premise was better expressed as a succinct and sincere expression of frustration. If you feel that you understand where I'm coming from, logically and emotionally, do you still think my framing was at fault?

And I really do take issue with the framing of your response. I think you can understand why.

If the correct application of the gendered pronoun is of more importance to you than the comfort and happiness of the human beings to which you apply that pronoun, you might just be an asshole.

I'm beginning to suspect that the GB community has a massive homoerotic crush on Patrick, everybody waiting for the day where he reads their particular little criticism and goes: 'Oh xxxsInArkangel13, you were right, you were right all along', and changes his writing style JUST FOR YOU <3

There's nothing wrong with it. This is a safe place. Just let it all out.

@patrickklepek said:

@Kill said:

When Patrick first joined Giant Bomb, he repeatedly said in his articles that he would not talk about his personal political beliefs as he did not feel they were necessary in his writing. As time went on, he started to plug his favourite political podcasts, put his liberal slant on news stories which did not require it, dropped his political opinions on the Bombcast when they wasn't asked for, and now he is actively seeking out some kind of validation for his own moral slant in the form of this article.

Look, I love Giant Bomb and I think Patrick is a great writer. However, this is nothing more than a "ha, told you so" to the community and an ego stroking by a man who believes only his political views should be noted on this site. He could at least have sought out a more balanced view of the situation. After the first three women said largely the same thing and no other viewpoint was represented, I could not help but picture that characteristic Patrick smirk behind all this.

I know this is a ramble, but I feel the other Giant Bomb guys do a great job of concealing their political ideologies. I have no idea who Brad, Jeff, Ryan or Vinny vote for. I could certainly guess, but it definitely isn't as clear as the liberal, Democrat voting, Reddit-reading klaxon of Klepek and his incessant need to spin gaming news a particular way. I find it distasteful, even if I agree with him on issues like this. It's a bit gross on a site which was founded on being impartial and fun.

Just my tl;dr opinion.

I'll say this regarding the political implications of an article like this. I don't go into writing any story thinking "great, this is an opportunity to push an agenda." It's the same reason one of the stories about #1reasonwhy included a line where I admitted to not considering myself a feminist, even if that statement may be a bit misguided. Rather, I go into every story with "what do I want to say?" if it's an opinion piece and "what story do I want to tell?" if it's a feature piece, like the ZombiU afterthoughts feature that will go up on the site tomorrow. Naturally, expressing my opinion may reveal some of my political leanings, and I'm obviously pretty transparent abou that on Twitter, but to put a muffle over my voice simply because my opinions might lead people to extrapolate a political leaning which might anger people is even crazier.

With all due respect Patrick, nobody is debating your right to hold and express an opinion. But as embarrassing as these comments have been, they represent a clear conflict between the things you want to talk about, and the way the audience wants to hear about it. Your strong moral conscience is impressive - but when you feel the need to demonstrate it so frequently and unequivocally, it makes you look egotistical, which draws attention away from the whole debate and towards one pole of it. It is better skew an issue in such a way that the author's bias, while clear, is non-essential.

Also, 'important issues' do not necessarily make interesting opinions. I am curious, if you always think: 'What do I want to say?' before writing an opinion piece, do you never then think: 'Huh, I have nothing original or iconoclastic or risky to say on this topic, let's leave it'? Do you never think: 'This one doesn't suit Giant Bomb?' All writers have filters based on their audience, except maybe bloggers. To disregard one's audience is not narcissism, but nor is it integrity.

And here I was thinking Alex was Latina.

My 7 year-old self found the Elite Four in Pokemon Blue so 'unfair' that he was reduced to tears on multiple playthroughs

The trauma remains, deep in my heart

Child actors. Never not fucked up (except Will Wheaton)

Still, I hope he spends his filth-gotten fortune on charity or something. Hypocrisy is lame.

Because I have talent. I don't want to die knowing I haven't lived up to it.

Bravo, sir!