You're apparently missing the very large point here, and I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp, but what you're choosing to disparagingly write off as "first-world problems" and soft-headedly identify as a case of 'assholes on both sides' is, in actuality, the hijacking of an 80 billion+ dollar industry by way of phasing out it's demographic and socially conducting the masses using nepotism, cries of victimhood and social justice, coercion, career sabotage, and censorship. I mean, did you just completely gloss over the part where a dozen columnists on various gaming sites came out with the SAME. FUCKING. "gamers are dead" article?
Cultural Marxism isn't going to limit itself based on your own perception of what you think does and does not warrant this much attention. Like I already said, this episode is one facet of a larger--organized--cultural attack: "The larger implications here are especially horrifying considering that the progressive agents within the gaming industry have just revealed the chink in the armor of the overall movement to shift and mold Western culture into whatever these SJW motherfuckers want it to be. Quite frankly, they should have foreseen this since the gaming medium is the least developed, and therefore less predictable/controllable, form of media. Thankfully, the contemporary American Marxist machine's hipster-agency turned out to be too arrogant to realize that social conduction of such a fickle and insular demographic isn't that simple, and so here we are."
They're trying to frame the narrative to paint gamers as misogynistic wastoids/rapists/harassers and you're choosing to ignore it in favor of sounding milquetoast. Both parties aren't wrong--or even half-right--by virtue of having a disagreement.
the argument I'm not hearing often enough really can't be overstated here. way back at the beginning of this shitstorm, when the ex's dazzlingly whiny rant outed quinn to begin with, someone should've established this because it would've ended the whole thing before it began. the question of whether or not zoe quinn fucked a reviewer does not determine whether she as an individual is at fault for supposedly ill-gotten reviews. zoe quinn could fuck the entire staff of IGN and it wouldn't make her solely responsible for 'corrupting' the hallowed institution of gaming journalism. because it takes two fucking people to fuck. when a man fucks a woman (♫♪♫), is he, like, hypnotized and unable to write an objective review? it doesn't make zoe quinn a vile temptress who should be ashamed for daring to use her vagina in a cavalier fashion. it doesn't even prove conclusively that the review was skewed on account of the alleged coitus. and if a reviewer comes out and admits "yeah, I gave her a good review because she does this fucking thing with her..." it says way more about his degree of objectivity and journalistic integrity than it does about the inherent evils of her femininity. if a prosecuting attorney fucks (or has fucked) the defendant, their ass is right the hell off that case (and possibly under investigation themselves) - if you're a journalist and you become romantically entangled with the subject of your article or review or feature, it's on you to get the hell off that byline. the one argument the feminists would be incontrovertibly right about (if they could just stick to it) is that blaming the woman does fuck-all to fix or address or even correctly identify the problem. if you're gonna bitch about reviews being skewed by money or sex or job referrals, maybe you should take it up with the reviewers who allow themselves to be influenced?
Why are you still on Zoe Quinn?
Why are you talking about her "femininity"?
Why are you choosing to strawman the issue by focusing on Quinn's nature as a female rather than, say, her coordinated campaign (with Sarkeesian, Alexander, et al) to censor the fact that she helped compromise the industry?
Why do you make it sound as though Grayson and friends aren't taking a whole lot of shit for this too?
Did you marry an SJW or what?
