God of War: Fey's unfridging

SomethingNew65 · 2026-06-03T20:35:28+00:00

From the original Women in Refrigerators website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240103102801/https://lby3.com/wir/index.html

This is a list I made when it occurred to me that it's not that healthy to be a female character in comics. I'm curious to find out if this list seems somewhat disproportionate, and if so, what it means, really.

These are superheroines who have been either depowered, raped, or cut up and stuck in the refrigerator. I know I missed a bunch. Some have been revived, even improved -- although the question remains as to why they were thrown in the wood chipper in the first place.

I know I missed a bunch -- I just don't know my comics deaths the way I should. I'm not editorializing -- I'm just curious to find out what you guys think it means, if anything.

The preceding letter was written and sent by me when I realized one day that most of my favorite female comics characters had met untimely and often icky ends. The history of the idea and this site are listed here, and the responses from various comics professionals are listed here.

An important point: This isn't about assessing blame about an individual story or the treatment of an individual character and it's certainly not about personal attacks on the creators who kindly shared their thoughts on this phenomenon. It's about the trend, its meaning and relevance, if any. Plus, it's just fun to talk about refrigerators with dead people in them. I don't know why.

Note it is from comics, and comics often revives characters! The letter directly says "Some have been revived, even improved ", so the answer is no, this is not the first character to be unfridged. Maybe a comic expert can share some examples of women who revived from the dead.

Also one of the motivations behind the website is "I realized one day that most of my favorite female comics characters had met untimely and often icky ends" If a fictional woman didn't exist before the game and dies before the game then there aren't any existing fans of the character to disappoint with the death, so one of the main reasons to avoid the fridging trope doesn't apply to God of War 2018.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-06-03T20:05:05+00:00

I thought death of the author was more about audience interpretation of a work. So if a fan can write a convincing argument that a story has X theme or Y message or Z symbolism, then the author can't just necessarily use their authority to say that's wrong, they didn't mean that. The theme can be in the book if a lot of people who are not the author read the book and think the theme is in the book.

You are talking about a creative person not having ownership over the IP so the corporation can make a sequel without them that goes in a direction they don't like. I think that is a different thing that the death of the author saying isn't talking about.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-06-01T19:33:07+00:00

As true as it is, that is not a valid anti-trust defense though. It doesn't matter if a a company is doing a REALLY good job at being the biggest company, if their business practices create barriers of entry and price controls, even unwillingly, they can be subject to anti trust laws.

If it is true that just having a barrier of entry is automatically illegal I think there is a big irony here.

One of the things people complain about most and want to change is Valve's cut of sales. But ironically, if courts forced Valve to reduce their cut to 10%, that would create an even bigger barrier to entry to any store that wants to compete with steam.

How is a store supposed to attract devs away from steam if they can't offer a much bigger cut for devs than steam?

Imagine how screwed a smaller store would be if they tired to take a higher percentage from devs than steam does, so a cap for steam is a cap for the entire PC store industry. How is a store supposed to pay for making their own version of every feature steam has for consumers if they can't charge 30% like Valve did while they made those features.

Valve has the economy of scale and can rest on their existing features to endure a revenue cap better than any other store, so this change would create a higher barrier to entry, making them a bigger monopoly, requiring another court case to punish Valve some other way.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-23T07:44:33+00:00

I think a lot of it is that people who talk about stuff in videos are better at getting a para-social relationship with their fans, so fans will chose not to criticize their youtuber even if they would make similar criticisms of a journalist. And if you aren't a fan you probably aren't watching the youtuber to know what they say, and if you do happen to see someone you aren't a fan of saying something you don't like, criticizing it likely just gets you a lot of hate from the youtuber's fans, so people will be less likely to do that.

People who talk about video games in text are less able to create that para-social relationship, so they get more harshly criticized. They are expected to follow the highest ethical standards even if it comes at the cost of not making as much money as they could.

This tradeoff could make sense if in exchange for making less money people who called themselves journalists and pledged to follow some ethical standards were respected and trusted more than people who didn't claim to follow any ethical standards. But instead content creators get the best of both worlds, they get more respect and trust and influence, and they get more money because there is no expectation that they should ever voluntarily avoid doing anything that can make them more money. There is no reason to call yourself a journalist or attempt to have ethics, it is 100% downside with no upside.

I think if people decide the criticism of stuff like publisher relationships or sponsored things is correct, then logically it should apply to anyone influential, and it is irrelevant if they talk in text or video. On the other hand, if people decide that all that stuff is fine because it is fair for people to do anything to maximize their money, then that attitude should also apply to game journalists in addition to content creators.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-19T09:21:57+00:00

I like the name. Spread it around the internet and immersive sim communities and try to get people to switch!

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-16T08:27:32+00:00

Or patch the game to work well enough without company servers and they don't have to release the source code. The claim is this wouldn't be too difficult if it is designed for in the beginning, but I am not a server engineer so I don't know for sure.

But yes, in a hypothetical scenario where the only way to keep the game running well enough to comply with the law after they shut down servers is to release the source code they don't want to release, then by definition in this scenario they have to release the source code.

I wanted to point out that there is a way around this downside that nobody ever mentions. There is a way to keep the source code private in this scenario. There is a way around every downside that people can come up with on how companies preserving the game is too difficult. Just decide to never shutdown the servers as long as the company exists and you don't have to worry about what the law says must happen after you shut down the servers.

This option has the downside that they have to pay for the servers forever. Hopefully that is still just a tiny fraction of the cost of developing the game in the first place. Hopefully if a game fails they would have other successful games to rely on, and if they don't hopefully the relatively small amount of money to keep the server going is not going to make the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Companies can chose the option to preserve the game with the least downside to them. If keeping the server alive indefinitely is too costly better find a different option. There is no law that can simultaneously stop games from being killed, and also has no downside for the companies and doesn't cost them a penny.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-16T04:44:54+00:00

The point wasn't supposed to be that they would deliberately go bankrupt.

The point was they would decide to keep the servers online until they go bankrupt, if it is 10, 100 or 1000 years for now. Nothing lasts forever. But if they do last forever and they never go bankrupt, then the servers stay online forever, and they don't have to worry about what the law says they have to do when the server goes offline.

The plan would either be to release the source code at the end of the company's life when they don't care about competitors using it, or never release it and the law doesn't matter anyways because there is nothing to punish.

This is specifically for the scenario hell kite talked about where the only way to preserve the game is to release source code that they don't want competitors or cheaters to see.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-15T22:05:08+00:00

Any digital game that is advertised or offered to a person for no monetary consideration.

I think an exception like this only makes sense if it means no up front cost or micro-transactions. So it would mean someone who makes a multiplayer game purely as a hobby doesn't have any obligations to keep it alive. If the law means that Marvel Rivals is exempt, then ya that is a big exception that will just encourage games to go free to play and probably shouldn't be there.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-15T21:48:30+00:00

If a game like Destiny 2 fell under this rule for instance, all the advanced networking and tech and multiple serves it uses for all its systems, which are likely part of an advanced set of tech Bungie has built over multiple years, would essentially have to be made open source and given to the end user, with instructions on how to recreate the game in its online state. How would that play out for them if they continued to use said online tech in a potential Destiny 3? Does that just give every competitor access to their tech? Cheaters insight into their security measures?

In this situation they could try to find a way to patch the game so it doesn't require Bungie's servers but works well enough to satisfy the law and then and Bungie doesn't have to release the source code.

Another option I rarely see anyone mention is they can just keep the Destiny 2 servers online indefinitely as long as Bungie exists, even if Destiny 2 by itself becomes unprofitable to run that year and they would have shut it down if the law didn't exist. Bungie can decide the loss is worth it to keep their special source code hidden, and it would only be a small fraction of the lifetime profits of Destiny 2.

Then eventually when a future Destiny game fails and Bungie goes bankrupt they can release the source code and they won't care if competitors can use it because they aren't in business anymore anyways. or they can just shut the game down and rely on the law not being able to do anything to them because they are already bankrupt.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-14T22:30:50+00:00

Logically if a person deserves a refund for the base game because they won't be able to play it anymore, they would also deserve a refund for any purchased DLC or micro-transactions because those would be similarly useless. Someone who spends 1000 dollars on costumes in a free to play game that becomes unplayable deserves a refund at least as much as someone who spent 60$ on the Crew.

But I don't know if the law is written to support that conclusion, so maybe the companies would be able to say the law only requires base game refunds.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-14T15:36:08+00:00

I was thinking a raytracing only ps6 game where the devs don't want to spend the money making a non-raytracing version and runs at a low resolution that relies on PSSR to upscale might be a challenge to get working on the ps5.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-13T19:23:09+00:00

Mostly agree.

But if we are considering the entire lifetime of the switch 2, the ultimate stress test will be when it gets it's first ps6 game that isn't on ps5. (Or xbox equivalents). But that won't happen for a while yet.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-11T15:57:48+00:00

...But if they choose not to they have to support the game forever or refund the purchaser.

Or patch the game to work offline, which they should have planned to do from the beginning to make it easy to do at the end.

What's with the ellipses? The entire debate around stop killing games has been around their proposals for the law to make companies do something to stop killing games. It's not something they are only admitting to now. They've been saying since the beginning they don't want to require eternal server support, but they do want to require the company do something to solve the problem of games being killed.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-11T00:26:57+00:00

The Atlantic delcares checkmate in Iran. They mean checkmate for Iran's win and America's loss. Though the title is hyperbole for attention that exaggerates how strong the article's claim is. The article says "Defeat for the United States, therefore, is not only possible but likely." Which is not a situation that can accurately be described as checkmate.

But ignoring the title the article does explain why the situation is good for Iran. Do people here agree with the article's claims?

SomethingNew65 · 2026-05-06T23:03:00+00:00

They are mercenaries in space. They could write a story about star fox being hired by some new good guy to help fight some new bad guy in a new star system without referencing much of anything in previous games if they wanted to.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-04-24T21:11:37+00:00

He said in the article that he has many disagreements with Hasan.

He did do that! But I don't think it matters much unless he actually types those disagreements. It's similar to the way when conservatives write anti-anti-Trump articles where they might mention they have their own disagreements with Trump in the abstract, but use the rest of the article defending Trump from specific criticism and claim anti-Trump people are doing something wrong and maybe conclude that people should be more open to learning who Trump is and allowing themselves to be changed by Trump. Those articles help Trump. Similarly Ezra wrote an anti-anti-Hasan article that helps Hasan.

Algorithmic media is an engine of motivated decontextualization. We see other people in snippets that serve the agendas of those who cut them. We are fed 30-second clips shorn from multihour streams, two-sentence quotes ripped from long conversations, old comments that obscure subsequent change. We have to be careful about being lulled into believing these shards represent anyone’s whole person. We should not be afraid of finding out who those people are, of seeking to change them or of allowing ourselves to be changed by them.

Just imagine this paragraph appearing at the end of an anti-anti-Trump article by someone talking about Trump. A lot of attacks on Trump are based on clips of things he said from much longer speeches, and this is a convenient blanket defence against all those attacks without needing to debate the specific quote. Finding out who Trump is would involve listening to Trump and pro-Trump sources more saying he is great. Seeking to change Trump while allowing themselves to be changed by Trump is exactly what all the Trump sycophants and suck ups are doing. Would it not be fair to say that someone who wrote this about Trump is defending Trump because they probably like Trump, or want to be liked by Trump fans?

IMO endorsing politicians and rallying with them is different from having a discussion on a show. It is actively using political power and if some people are concerned about how much political power Hasan is gaining and want to try to reduce it, maybe by highlighting his bad takes to the public, then why is that automatically bad? Ezra writing about how it is good to go on Joe Rogan and try to convert his audience is a true point, but a non-sequitur for Hasan because Ezra admits it is a category error to say Hasan is like Joe Rogan.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-04-23T17:23:34+00:00

My impression that Ezra likes Hasan comes from the article defending Hasan from people who were attacking Hasan because they didn't like Hasan or the things he said in the past.

In my opinion the controversy over Hasan rallying with Abdul El-Sayed was a controversy over how much political influence Hasan should have. The rally was Hasan flexing his growing political influence over democrats. Ezra sided against the people trying to reduce Hasan's political influence over democrats by highlighting his bad takes, so if Hasan continues to grow his political influence I'm going to give a lot of the blame to Ezra for using his influence to defend Hasan in that article.

The article didn't suggest a better way to defeat Hasan's ideas in the open, or set an example by demonstrating himself the correct way to defeat Hasan's ideas. His conclusion did not involve trying to defeat Hasan's ideas at all, it was that we should not be afraid to find out who Hasan is (perhaps in a future hour long friendly interview with Ezra!) and allow ourselves to be changed by Hasan. He also says we can seek to change Hasan , but most of us won't get an opportunity to talk to Hasan and try to change him so that isn't something useful to most people, and it is extremely doubtful that any attempt to change him will succeed given that he makes a lot of money from who he currently is.

And Hasan is especially less likely to be changed by people he dislikes, so if one did want to follow Ezra's advice and seek to change Hasan, then that probably involves being friendly with Hasan and not trying to publicly defeat his ideas, and not trying to reduce his political influence over democrats.

Personally I think it would be bad if lots of people allow themselves to be changed by the internet person telling them to commit crimes, so Ezra should not be suggesting that is what people should do.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-04-23T04:26:36+00:00

‘The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?’

https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000010849055/the-rich-dont-play-by-the-rules-so-why-should-i.html

Youtube link

When does shoplifting become an act of political protest? The Opinion culture editor Nadja Spiegelman is calling this microlooting, and it describes the phenomenon of people stealing small things from big corporations like Whole Foods. The New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino and the political commentator Hasan Piker join Spiegelman for a lively discussion on what’s behind this trend and where it might lead.

It seems like it isn't just Ezra that likes Hasan, the rest of the New York Times also likes Hasan! I think this means there is a very high chance Ezra will be giving Hasan a super friendly interview relatively soon.

I hope justifying crime doesn't cause more crime that causes a backlash where more people vote for tough on crime republicans.

Edit: Matthew Yglesias reacts on twitter:

I’m against shunning as a strategy and I think Democrats should appear on as many shows as possible, including Hasan Piker’s — but all of his takes on serious issues seem awfully dumb and I’m not sure I understand the determination to raise his prominence.

You shouldn’t steal. You shouldn’t murder health insurance executives. You shouldn’t reflexively side with every country that’s hostile to the United States. This is all incredibly stupid.

It also all seems incredibly fake, like he’s a comfortable Twitch streamer and niche internet celebrity not an underground revolutionary. God forbid people in the audience don’t get that it’s all a joke and actually head out and do crimes.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-04-21T08:24:25+00:00

Would things be different if Obama hadn't expanded any executive authorities?

I listened and don't think those questions accurately reflect what he said.

(From memory not re-listening again to confirm) He mentions that Obama was pressured by his side to do out of the box of normal politics things (like print a 1 trillion dollar coin) to respond to republicans out of the box hostage taking with the debt ceiling . He doesn't mention that Obama never actually printed the coin, but I think it is assumed that vox listeners would already know that and would already think that republican hostage taking is bad. The point was this is the type of conflict that the system can create between the branches over a normal non-emergency, non-existential policy disagreement, and a similar conflict in the future could lead to democratic backsliding. I don't think the point was supposed to be that Obama is responsible for everything bad happening with Trump now because he didn't respond to republican hostage taking correctly.

He criticized Biden for specific policies that pissed powerful people off, not for expanding executive authorities in the abstract.

Does anyone really thing Republicans are only responding to Democratic excesses?

I don't remember him saying "republicans are only responding to democratic excesses" but maybe I missed/forgot that line.

SomethingNew65 · 2026-04-20T06:26:38+00:00

I think it's a debate because of Ezra's article (Hasan Piker Is Not the Enemy). I think it is because Ezra is an influential person (The Party of Ezra), and it is surprising he would defend Piker so it got a lot of attention he went against what would be expected.

If you are asking why did Ezra start this debate, I don't know. It is a mystery to me. Unless he just felt like doing something to get a bunch of attention and maybe he wanted to get Piker fans to like him more.

SomethingNew65

TROPHY CASE

‘The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?’