It’s been called out multiple times by even left leaning sources like NPR and motherjones its so bad.

Ok, here’s Motherjones guide to mass shootings

Weapons: Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. They included dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines. (See charts below.) Just as a perpetrator used a .40-caliber Glock to slaughter students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did the one in Aurora, along with an AR-15 assault rifle, when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. In Newtown, Connecticut, the attacker wielded a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle as he massacred 20 school children and six adults.

Or here’s Pew Research:

About eight-in-ten U.S. murders in 2021 – 20,958 out of 26,031, or 81% – involved a firearm.

The overall increase in U.S. gun deaths since the beginning of the pandemic includes an especially stark rise in such fatalities among children and teens under the age of 18. Gun deaths among children and teens rose 50% in just two years, from 1,732 in 2019 to 2,590 in 2021.

The rate of children dying to firearms in the US is 6.01 per 100,000

The rate of children dying to firearms in Canada is 0.21 per 100,000

In 2023, 754 people died in mass shootings in the USA.

In Canada, there have been 171 deaths to mass shootings for all of the 21st century so far.

We would have had to lose 83 people per year to shootings to keep up with you for 2023. We lost 11.

You have a higher chance of getting killed by bees or lightning than dying from a “mass shooting”

(Lightning is at the bottom right there.)

The chance of dying from gun violence overall is about 50% greater than the lifetime risk of dying while riding inside a car, truck, or van (a category that excludes pedestrian, cyclist, and other deaths outside of a motor vehicle). It’s also more than 10 times as high as dying from any force of nature, such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, or lightning strike.

“Old lamps for new! Old lamps for new!”

At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the reputation of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[1] In particular, to establish prima facie defamation, the plaintiff needs to establish three things:

• The material is defamatory, as in it lowers the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the right thinking person
• The material refers to the plaintiff, and
• The material was communicated to a party other than the plaintiff[2]

It sounds like the only thing they might struggle to prove is the first one, specifically “…it lowers the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the right thinking person” One ‘cool’ thing conservatives can do now is attack someone with absolutely nonsensical comments, and then go ‘whoa whoa I was just kidding. I was clearly exaggerating/joking’ etc. Not 100% sure it’ll work, I can just already see it happening. Especially from someone as cruel and moronic as to have ‘Blonde Bigot’ as a screen-name.

I don’t vote Con or Lib, I vote NDP, they represent us just fine.

I feel like we tolerated the assholes of the time because, immature though they were, they were the life of the party, which was “the point” of gaming for a demographic, to be the exact opposite of work in every way.

Hard disagree there, particularly as someone who worked in the industry, has a gay kid, and worked with women in the industry. The ‘frat boy’ stuff was amusing to 13 year old fans, sure, but it was abusive, cruel, and awful to be anywhere near. There’s a billion different ways to achieve the same objective without being homophobic, sexist, etc, like say this masterpiece response to said ad.

Yes, and I really hope more people see this. It was an embarrassment, and people tried to quickly forget. Before they did though, we got to see the absolute art piece that was the Battlefield teams response.

Yeah it’s shockingly hard to see donations of corporations. Good luck, I don’t envy you :(

I should not have replied to her but kept to myself.

I don’t care about the ad, never was a gamer, just stumbled in here via all.

The fact you have the wherewithal to say that means you’re basically there already. A simple “Huh, why?” goes a long way.

Thank you so much; one thing I’ve learned in my 40+ years is that name and shame absolutely makes companies 180. Call them out for the fascist cowards they are, and let people see it.

Tongue out with ecstasy on is something you would see at raves. The eyes up is odd i give you that, that’s made to look submissive, and sure there are sexual connotations, advertisers are clever.

Yeah exactly, but also come on everyone, ecstasy is a drug that tends to make you want to fuck. So I think the ad -> sluttiness could be from, and I’m guessing here, that she’s in a submissive pose that just so happens to be identical to a sexual one, taking a drug that makes one want to fuck, and that’s her ‘role’ in this ad.

That said, you’ll notice not a single person asking the woman who posted why she saw it that way, they just jumped to tell her she’s wrong.

So @stufkes@lemmy.world , on behalf of men on lemmy, I’m sorry you got this reaction. I really hope at least one person in this thread goes “Wait… I don’t see it as problematic, but someone else does. Maybe I should understand why?”

Nobody’s been condescending but you, motherfucker.

Hahahhahahah

Late 90’s/early 2000’s E3 and game shows were greasy

I posted this elsewhere, but people pretend like that just ended abruptly in 2005, but I want people to always remember this shit. That’s 2009, not 1999, gross.

None of them lived in the real world and they just churned out knee-jerk sexist bullshit because they wanted to appeal to boys going through puberty and men that never left that headspace.

It really took the industry a long time to get out of that, too. It was all through the early 2000’s, and people forget, also had wonderful shit like:

this, which should have taken that franchise down. People just gloss over it now like ‘oh yeah, haha, people were just like that back in… 2009!? Oh, shit, uh…’

(EDIT: Feel free to explain your downvote, you miss ads like this?)

her in a pose with tongue out

Yeah, so you can see the logos forming the pattern of the face buttons on the pills.

Are you seriously implying this is the only pose you could use to show that off?

Nobody said she can’t be, they just pointed out her reasoning doesn’t really hold much water, because it doesn’t.

Ah, ok, I understand now.

Oh wow, that’s a huge fire!

Not that I’d advocate violence, but the ‘Toronto I Know’ would have been tossing garbage/pop cans/etc at it.

(No True Scotsman, etc, I understand.)

Oh we’re never going to keep it to 1.5, we’ve already fucked that. It is possible, though almost assuredly unlikely, that we keep it under 2.0.

Oh, she’s trashy? Why? Please don’t tell us you did not get whooshed by the ad now.

The ad has combined the image of putting tablets on a womans tongue, while also having her in a pose with tongue out that is also used to imply the desire to perform oral sex. This is highlighted by the fact she is looking up, with the camera focused on her face.

That said, I’m guessing here, but I’m sure as hell not going to tell a woman she’s not allowed to be offended by sexualization of another woman to sell Playstations.