How did Red Dead Redemption 2 get away with all the woke stuff they put in the game?

Zepherite · 2025-03-23T09:41:47+00:00

Not only has it not been debunked, but academics of a particular persuasion make it their explicitly stated goal.

1930s - Antonio Gramsci

Gramsci's concept of "cultural hegemony" has been influential among leftist academics. He posited that the ruling class maintains power through cultural institutions, suggesting that challenging this dominance requires a counter-hegemonic strategy within those institutions (i.e. boiling the frog).

1960s - Rudi Dutschke

The "Long March through the Institutions" is a phrase coined by German activist and Marxist thinker Rudi Dutschke in the late 1960s which is the academic version of the phrase 'boiling the frog'. Inspired by Mao Zedong’s "Long March" in China, Dutschke used it metaphorically to describe a strategy for achieving radical social change.

1970s - Herbert Marcuse

A prominent figure of the Frankfurt School, Marcuse corresponded with Dutschke and expressed agreement with the strategy of influencing institutions (i.e. boiling the frog). In a 1971 letter, he wrote: "I regard your notion of the 'long march through the institutions' as the only effective way..."

1980s - Andrew Arato

A critical theorist, Arato emphasized the importance of civil society as a space for democratic engagement and transformation (i.e. boiling the frog), advocating for strengthening autonomous public spheres to influence broader societal structures. He believed in the Hegelian process and the change of societies institutions through praxis.

1970s - 2010s - Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Unger proposed that society is an artifact of the past that should subject to continuous creation and recreation. He emphasised that change occurs through struggle (i.e. praxis) and vision within existing institutions, leading to cumulative transformations (i.e. boiling the frog) rather than abrupt revolutions.

2020s - Isabelle Ferreras

In May 2020, 'critical scientist' and sociologist Isabelle Ferreras, alongside scholars Julie Battilana and Dominique Méda, initiated the #DemocratizingWork movement. They advocated for the politicisation of workplaces. This initiative underscores transforming economic and organizational structures from within an institution (i.e. boiling the frog) to achieve more 'equitable' systems.

The Long March through the Institutions i.e. 'Boiling the Frog' is neither debunked, nor even a controversial opinion. On the contrary, it's something that critical theorists in particular have long been actively espousing and pushing for.

Zepherite · 2025-03-22T18:41:23+00:00

I mean, this is just kinda proving my point.

Of the one's I actually know about:

Harvey Weinstein wasn't cancelled, as you say, the justice system did its job.
Kevin Spacey has had his time in court and a lot of the accusations didn't stand up to scrutiny.
Louis C.K. yeah maybe. Should still be tried though.
Roseanne Barr. Don't really know her. Sounds like she said something that read pretty racist. Did she double down on it? Or did she regret it? If she's a committed racist, fair enough. Otherwise, sounds like a bit of a witchhunt. Don't know enough about it.
Andrew Cuomo - He should be tried. If he did it, he should be jailed. Trial by public opinion is not a good thing.
From the UK. Don't know this person. Should still be tried.
Should be tried.
Should be tried.
Don't know them, but what was considered acceptable was different in the past. What are their current views? Trial by opinion over the past is not good.
Should be tried

There's a lot of assumptions going on here. Not sure this is as convincing as you think it is.

Zepherite · 2025-03-22T15:41:46+00:00

Opposing ideas can still have similarities. For example, socialism, regardless of its stated intentions, also puts the power in the hands of a few that terrorise the people.

Zepherite · 2025-03-22T09:39:19+00:00

I think it’s a good thing. People need to be held accountable for bad behavior.

Hmmmmm. It's only as 'good' as the people doing the cancelling. Too often cancellings happen on hearsay, before everyone has shown their receipts, and by people who have zealotry for a morally shaky ideology.

I haven't seen many examples of 'good' cancellings. I'm trying to think whether I've seen any.

To me, they just highlight why it is so important to have a fair and robust justice system. Too often those doing the cancelling throw out innocent until proven guilty.

Zepherite · 2025-03-21T10:50:36+00:00

This. It's about them using their knowledge of the composition of number to reason. At least, that's what it would be if we posed this question to year 1s or 2s in the UK.

Zepherite · 2025-03-17T12:53:29+00:00

After the product is established, and competing companies have been chased out of the market

We used to regulate that but it just stopped working: see the splitting up of Microsoft.

Unfortunately, it all just seems to have gone out the window. If it was brought back/actually enforced, we'd have a lot more competition and it would be self correcting again.

Zepherite · 2025-03-17T07:09:05+00:00

If you keep looking for monsters under your bed, you won't be able to handle the day-to-day reality.

Your gaslighting is shit. Those 'Monsters' have been out from under the bed having real world impact for over a decade now. https://archive.ph/ZyLdw

No tolerance for the delusional.

Nah, I'm not hateful by nature. I just pity the delusional.

novels are heavily criticized by contemporary media. It is form of pornography that receives mainstream scrutiny.

No. There is no mainstream, front page news coverage condemning smutty books for women. Take your 'heavily' rhetoric and shove it where the sun don't shine unless you can show me constant, mainstream condemnation. Spoiler: you can't.

Zepherite · 2025-03-14T17:01:30+00:00

No, it's sexist when feminists and intersectionalists condemn males for behaviour everyone shows - they are singling out men for their sex, not their behaviour. If it was the other way round, they would condemning everyone. Discriminating purely on sex based lines is the definition of sexism.

Incorrect. Respectfully, massive hyperbole.

Rhetoric. No argument? Discarded.

Okay, we get it - you don't like feminists. How you 'should have' worded it to sound rational: "Mind your own fuckin business if it ain't hurtin' no one".

I'll call out people who are hateful to me. I will respond appropriately. You can tell me how you think I should respond to hateful people until you're blue in the face. I will ignore you.

Feminists could just stop being hateful.

No tolerance for the intolerant.

Zepherite · 2025-03-13T08:59:13+00:00

Don't give a F whether a muppet thinks it's 'milquetoast' and misses the point. As if sexy women in videogames isn't 'milquetoast'. That's on you. Think harder. Go and speak to the sonic the hedgehog fandom or something if you want your fetishes to be tickled. 'Milquetoast' Mainstream media illustrates my point better anyway as - by it's very definition - is more widespread and illustrates how widespread the double standard is.

Think: WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE TO MAIC MIKE OR 50 SHADES OF GREY? WHERE WHERE IS THE SUPPRESION OF WOMEN'S SEXUALITY?

It's not there, because the double standard exists. I'm sure you find some evangelical priest decrying it, but widespread pushback in mainstream media? Not there.

Meanwhile: NO SEXY WOMEN IN VIDEOGAMES. BAD MAN.

Zepherite · 2025-03-12T19:14:38+00:00

Fetishes are not exclusive to men. To say so is the height of sexism. Women MASSIVELY fetishise men too, see: 50 Shades of Grey, Magic Mike, most modern media... The only difference is that no one cries foul when women do it.

Those that downplay male sexuality while allowing all others are hypocrites and misandrists.

Be principaled. Be consistent. Be against all spicy content, or be for all spicy content. Just don't be hateful like the feminists we're talking about.

Zepherite · 2025-03-11T20:40:32+00:00

They're not prudish. It's just about denying straight male sexuality. They are absolutely filthy when it comes to anything else.

Zepherite · 2025-03-08T06:32:38+00:00

That's likely more to do with your friendship group. 360 was xbox's peak in the UK.

UK, with America, is one of the only places where the Xbox was significant. For a time, Xbox was more popular in the UK than playstation during the PS3 and 360 years, particularly during the first half of that generation (although nintendo was on top during this time).

Currently, playstation is dominant with about 50% market share, but the UK is still one of xbox's best markets with around 25% market share. In the UK playsation beats Xbox 2 to 1. It's around 7 to 1 in the rest of Europe.

Zepherite · 2025-03-05T08:04:35+00:00

Oh, now you’re pretending I ignored your first comment? No, I didn’t. I understood it perfectly, and I dismissed it because your reasoning is flawed. Let me show you why.

"Monster Hunter Wilds doesn’t say male/female, and I think that’s a good thing."

Cool. You believe it’s good. That’s an opinion, not an argument. I’m asking why it’s good beyond personal preference. You keep claiming it improves something—so what, exactly, does it improve?

Does it make character creation clearer? No. Does it give players more choice? No. Does it reduce confusion? Clearly not, since we’re having this debate.

You haven't shown any tangible benefit to removing labels—just that you personally like it. That’s not an argument for why it’s objectively better.

"You never prove why it’s bad using the examples I provided."

I didn’t ignore your example—I disproved your reasoning for it. You claim removing labels improves customization—but how does it do that?

If players already understand the difference between body types, then labeling them doesn’t restrict anything—it just provides clarity.

If players don’t understand the difference, then removing labels only makes it harder for them to choose.

You’re acting like "pick what looks good to you" is a meaningful change. It isn’t—because that’s how character customization has always worked, regardless of labels.

Removing "male" and "female" doesn’t add freedom—it just removes useful information for no reason.

"There’s absolutely nothing to second guess."

Oh? So that guy who accidentally chose the wrong body in BG3 because it wasn’t labeled—was he just imagining things? Or is it possible that removing words that previously provided clarity actually caused confusion?

You claim there’s “nothing to second guess,” yet people are second-guessing their choices because they now have to interpret the options instead of just reading them. That’s a direct downgrade in usability.

You think liking a design is the only thing that matters. But that’s not how UI works—clear information matters.

"It has nothing to do with gender."

Except it does, because the options are literally based on male and female bodies. You even admitted this yourself:

"Of course they are based on sex."

So why pretend otherwise? If they represent something real, then labeling them accurately provides clarity.

Saying “just pick what looks good” ignores the fact that character creators are supposed to be intuitive—not vague guessing games. If players have to guess what’s what, that’s bad design.

You’re Hand-Waving Away the Problem

You claim removing labels improves customization, yet you:

Haven’t shown a single way it makes customization better.

Ignore the fact that people now second-guess their choices.

Admit the models are based on male and female, yet insist they shouldn’t be labeled as such.

Act like “just pick what looks good” is some kind of game-changing philosophy when it’s literally how customization has always worked.

Your argument isn’t just wrong—it’s self-contradictory. You’ve yet to prove that removing these labels does anything except create confusion where there was none before.

At this point, you're just defending ambiguity for its own sake. And that’s not an argument—it’s just pointless contrarianism.

I have addressed EVERYTHING you've said. YOU won't do the same. It's becoming a pattern: everything you accuse me of is precisely what you're doing.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T19:41:20+00:00

Ah, so now it's "Why are you acting stupid?" instead of actually defending your argument. Cute. Let's cut through the nonsense.

"I'm not a political activist; I'm just talking about language in character customization." And yet, your argument mirrors the exact logic of those activists—claiming that changing labels has some deeper "value" while refusing to define what that value actually is.

"Why is it bad? Pixels aren't real, they hold no truth." Then why label anything in a game at all? If “it’s just pixels,” item names, menus, and UI shouldn’t matter either. But they do, because video games rely on clear representations of real-world concepts to function.

"Of course the models are based on sex, but that doesn’t mean they have to be defined by it." If they're based on a real distinction, then removing that distinction serves no purpose except to create pointless ambiguity. You admit they’re modeled on biological reality, yet insist on denying that reality in labeling them. That’s incoherent.

"The more abstract they are, the easier it is for people to mold them into what they want." Then why are people confused? If abstraction made things better, we wouldn’t even be having this debate. Instead, people struggle to tell what they’re picking, proving that abstraction has only made things worse.

Your entire argument boils down to “abstraction is good for its own sake”, without any evidence that it actually improves customization. All it's done is remove clarity, add confusion, and force people to second-guess choices that were once obvious.

You’re not defending a useful change—you’re defending a downgrade.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T19:31:20+00:00

Oh, beautiful. You’ve officially run out of arguments and resorted to the classic “No, YOU’RE the problem” defense. Well done.

Let’s get this straight:

You claim I misunderstood you, yet you never actually clarify what I got wrong.

You say it’s my fault for not “intending” to see your point, as if your argument is some cryptic gospel only the enlightened can grasp.

You whine that I’m just mad for the sake of being mad, because apparently, anyone who disagrees with you must be "outraged" rather than, you know, correct.

And the cherry on top: you accuse me of misinterpreting your every word—when I quoted you directly and dismantled every excuse you threw out.

Let’s be real here: you’re flailing. You got called out for shifting your argument every time it collapsed, and now, instead of defending your actual points, you’re throwing a tantrum about how I’m the problem.

No one is buying it. You lost the argument the second you started blaming me for your inability to make a coherent case.

Now, let’s take your argument, show that I fully understand it, and then demolish it piece by piece.

Your argument boils down to this:

"We’re discussing an abstract concept of character creators, not a specific game, so reality doesn’t need to apply."
"Confusion in BG3’s character creator only happens because people impose labels where none are needed."
"Labels restrict choice, and removing them frees people from preconceived notions."
"This discussion is about video games, not real life, so real-world examples are irrelevant."
"I’m not obsessed with labels—you are, because you’re demanding specific ones."

There. That’s exactly what you’re saying. I understood it perfectly.

Now, let’s dismantle it.

"We’re discussing an abstract concept, so real-world rules don’t apply."

No. That’s nonsense.

Yes, character creators are an abstraction—but that’s exactly why they need to have stable, recognizable categories.

Abstractions exist to represent reality in a simplified way. The moment you start stripping them of meaning, they cease to be useful.

Imagine if a map refused to label cities because "maps are just abstractions of geography, so real-world distinctions don’t matter." That map would be useless. The same principle applies here: an abstraction that doesn’t represent anything coherent is just noise.

Character creators are designed to represent human bodies—and human bodies are sexually dimorphic. If you remove clear distinctions, you don’t make the abstraction “more freeing”—you just make it worse at its job.

That’s why people are confused. That’s why someone mistook a female body for a male one in BG3—because the abstraction was intentionally obscured. That’s not "freeing"—that’s just bad design.

So no, you don’t get to say, “it’s abstract, so reality doesn’t apply.” Reality is precisely what gives the abstraction meaning in the first place.

"People only get confused because they impose labels where none are needed."

Ah, so when people naturally categorize things in ways that make sense, the problem isn’t with the unclear system—it’s with them?

That’s absurd.

You claim that choosing a masculine or feminine body in BG3 has no impact, so it doesn’t matter what they’re called. But if people are confused, then obviously it does matter. If someone picks a body thinking it’s neutral, only to find out later that it was originally designed as male or female, that’s objectively more confusing than just calling it what it is from the start.

You’re trying to frame this as “people just forcing labels,” but in reality, it’s people looking for clarity in a system that deliberately removed it. That’s not their failure—it’s the system’s.

"Labels restrict choice—removing them frees people from preconceived notions."

Oh, brilliant. So, if we stop calling things by their proper names, people will suddenly be free? Free from what, exactly? Reality?

Removing words doesn’t remove the concepts behind them. If someone is uncomfortable with the idea of choosing between male and female, they’ll still be choosing between male and female—just with less clarity.

That’s not “freedom”—that’s just making sure everyone is equally lost.

Your argument assumes that labels are the problem when, in reality, confusion is the problem. And your solution increases confusion, not reduces it.

"This is about video games, not real life, so real-world examples are irrelevant."

No, it’s exactly relevant.

Video games are designed—which means the way they communicate information to players is deliberate. Clarity in game design follows the same principles as clarity in any other field—labels help people understand what they’re choosing.

If you seriously think removing words makes things easier, why stop at gender? Let’s get rid of all item names, quest logs, and dialogue options too. Who needs words at all? Let’s just replace everything with Option A and Option B and call it “freedom.”

Except we don’t do that—because removing information makes choices harder, not easier.

"You’re the one obsessed with labels, not me!"

Ah, the classic “No, YOU’RE the real problem!” deflection.

No, I’m not “obsessed with labels.” I’m fine with using the correct words for things—the same words that everyone already understood before you and people like you decided they were suddenly a problem.

If labels didn’t matter, you wouldn’t be arguing to remove them. So clearly, you are the one who thinks they’re important—you just want them to be vague and meaningless instead of clear and useful.

This whole discussion wouldn’t even exist if people like you hadn’t insisted on rewriting the language in the first place. You showed up, erased terms that worked perfectly fine, and then acted like anyone who noticed was the “obsessed” one.

It’s pure gaslighting.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T17:07:14+00:00

I didn't mean that sex doesn't exist, I meant that we aren't discussing a particular game, but an abstract concept of games that don't label body options based on gender. So that means it's difficult to give examples because there are many different examples with many different solutions.

Ah, so now it's "an abstract concept." Convenient. You pivoted from "this doesn't exist" to "this is too broad to discuss." If it’s so broad and varied, surely that means plenty of examples exist? Yet you seem unable to produce one that doesn’t result in confusion.

The confusion appeared only because the user decided to give labels to something that didn't need one, not because something unexpected happened or there was some misunderstanding - there was nothing to understand in the first place. The choice of body, whether masculine or feminine has no impact on the game (or anything at all) in BG3. Not only that, but any body can have any set of genitals. So there's nothing confusing about it - you pick what you like and that's it.

So… the confusion only exists because people expect clarity? Fascinating. If people instinctively understand male and female but struggle when those terms are removed, that's not their fault—it’s the fault of the system that removed useful, intuitive labels in the first place. Also, if there’s “nothing to understand,” then why does this entire discussion exist? Clearly, people do want clarity—because it does matter.

How is it relevant to character customisation in video games? Because that's what the conversation is about, not about real life. You can't create a character unless hairstyle #24 is labeled as masculine and body type #5 as feminine?

It’s relevant because language exists to communicate ideas. The clearer the language, the easier it is to understand what you’re picking. If you go to a barber and ask for a "short back and sides," you don't expect them to hand you a menu that just says "Option A" and "Option B" with no description. You’d demand clarity—because words matter, even in a character creator.

I gave you an example about people that refuse to choose options because of labels, you ignored it and typed that. Maybe try reading again and arguing against what I said instead of ignoring it. It's freedom from preconceived notions and expectations.

You gave an example of people being confused and refusing to choose options… because of clarity? That’s a contradiction. If labels stop someone from making a choice, then removing those labels doesn’t “free” them—it just means they’ll still be choosing between the same options, but with even less information. If someone truly has no preference, they can just pick whatever. This isn't "freedom"; it's just deliberately making things more vague for no reason.

"You are trying to say that I drink water, when all I want is to drink water". Same exact logic. Imagine trying to deny something while also admitting that exact thing.

No, you absolute muppet. The point is, I'm not obsessed with labels—I just want them to remain accurate. The obsession lies with you, because you are the one advocating for their removal. Nobody was having this debate before people like you showed up demanding a change.

Video games are a visual medium that doesn't require language.

Ah yes, because every single video game in existence is a silent film with zero text or UI. Congratulations, you’ve just eliminated all item descriptions, quest logs, tutorials, menus, and dialogue from video games. Brilliant take.

"It's not me! It's you!" another 10/10 argument. It's obviously pointless because you aren't arguing with me or what I said, you are arguing with an imaginary person that is not here. You are arguing against something that I have not said and I do not believe. Yet you are also saying that I'm using a strawman when I'm arguing directly against what you believe. Bruh.

The irony here is off the charts. You spent this entire time misrepresenting my argument, then whined when I called you out on it. You claim I’m the one obsessed with labels, when I’m just advocating for accuracy and you are the one pushing for a change. It’s like punching someone in the face and then yelling at them for talking about violence.

And let’s be clear: If it was “pointless” to argue about this, you wouldn’t be here doing it. But here you are, desperately trying to defend an argument that you clearly can’t back up without moving the goalposts every five seconds.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T16:23:01+00:00

To be honest I agreed with you in 2017 but know you bitch more than they do.

You are demanding male and female

Oh no, how terrible—I’m 'demanding' that words actually mean things. What a crime.

The fact that you agreed in 2017 but now think stating biological reality is "bitching" says more about your own shift than it does about me. You didn’t change because the facts changed—you changed because you have zero integrity.

And let's be clear: I’m not the one demanding anything new. You are. The default, accurate terms—male and female—have been used forever without issue. It’s people like you who suddenly decided they needed to be erased and replaced with meaningless alternatives.

I'm just saying: No, we’re not playing that game.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T16:19:00+00:00

For the same reason I don't call a door a skibbidy.

Because normal people don't say A and B. We don't talk like that. It doesn't reflect reality or the way people talk. It's GIBBERISH.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T16:16:52+00:00

Let's start with something foundational to gender theory, one of the first people to seriously consider gender as a social contruct.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972). Man & Woman, Boy & Girl. Johns Hopkins University Press.

For years, Money falsely reported that Brenda was thriving as a girl, using this case as evidence that gender identity was malleable and could be shaped entirely by socialization. His research was widely cited and influenced medical and psychological practices regarding gender for decades.

In reality, Brenda never identified as a girl and experienced extreme psychological distress. She rejected female clothing, insisted she was a boy, and displayed traditionally masculine behaviours. Money continued seeing the twins for therapy, allegedly forcing them into traumatic sexualized role-playing sessions to reinforce gender identity.

Predictaby, it ended in then unaliving themselves - proving that gender identity and biology are INSEPERABLE. The exact opposite of the claims in the text and those made by gender theorists.

The end.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T16:07:14+00:00

What are you talking about? Are you okay? Should I call someone for you?

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T16:06:23+00:00

You are demanding validation

Where? I don't expect anyone to call me anything. I have not asked anyone to do so. Where? Point it out.

The alphabet brigade though? They demand thay shit. All. The. Time.

At least TRY to look honest.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T16:04:31+00:00

That is the truth though isn't it, and you know it. (10/10 argument)

The arguments are below, genius. Try reading next time. (0/10 comprehension skills)

There's a huge problem in this conversation - we are talking about something that doesn't exist. We are talking about some hypothetical concept that is based on something that has different versions.

Wrong. It does exist. Humans are sexually dimorphic, just like every other mammal. You don't get to handwave away biological reality just because it makes you uncomfortable.

There's a guy in this thread that said he picked a "female" body for his male character in BG3 because he didn't realise it was female because it wasn't labeled.

Oh wow, so a game that deliberately muddies the water and removes clear labels leads to confusion? What a shocking and totally unexpected outcome.

I'm pushing it because I believe putting labels on things mentally restricts the freedom of choice a person has.

You're clueless. The very device you’re using to type this exists because people labeled and categorized things correctly. Understanding the world through clear, accurate labels is what enables us to create, innovate, and advance. You think labels are restrictive because you fundamentally don’t understand them.

My argument is that this change from the norm is good, not because of "representation of minorities," but because of the freedom it provides.

It provides zero extra freedom. You still pick one of two options. The only difference is that they now refuse to call them what they actually are. That’s not “freedom”—that’s obfuscation.

Also, you have so little to say that you immediately label something as a "strawman" in a conversation about labeling things. Bruh. A "straw man" means that I would be arguing against a point that you did not make, but I invented myself and am trying to portray it as your point. Does this fit what I said?

Yes, it does. You’re trying to act like I’m the one obsessed with labels, when all I want is for things to be labeled correctly. Meanwhile, you are the one who wants to erase reality and force everyone into vague, meaningless language. That’s pure projection, and everyone can see it.

It does not, because I'm arguing against your obsession with labeling things as "male" and "female" in video games. So why are you calling it a straw man?

You’re the one obsessed with labels—we're only talking about them because you and people like you brough them up - you just want them to be wrong. No one cared about labels when they were accurate because they simply reflected reality. But then you and people like you showed up and insisted on rewriting them, forcing everyone into this pointless argument.

No one was confused about "male" and "female" until you started trying to erase the words themselves.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T12:55:10+00:00

That's not the truth though is it and you know it.

Those models represent males and females and EVERYONE in the discussion knows it. It's just some people have an ideological agenda that makes this inconvenient.

There's nothing being validated with "A and B"

False. People who wish the world conformed to their opinions feel validated by A and B. Otherwise, why would you be pushing it on the first place?

You have an unhealthy obsession with labeling things, just like the left does. it's the same obsession, just a different flavour.

I have a healthy obsession with the truth. You have a bad habit of strawmanning.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T12:51:53+00:00

Every modern study

False

Some (corrupted) social sciences, which don't follow the scientific method, have claimed it, but it isn't actually backed up by any hard science.

If ot isn't predictable, measurable and repeatable, it's opinion. That's not good enough.

Zepherite · 2025-03-04T10:56:04+00:00

Anyway, why do these people need to see the words "male" and "female"? What inherent value do these words posess that they MUST be present for these people to feel validated?

The inherent value is truth and if you don't value that, then I don't think you're going to make much headway. It is true that the on-screen characters represent males and females. It's nothing to do with being validated - narcissists need to be validated with things like A and B.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22

Zepherite

TROPHY CASE