So you're saying Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros shouldn't ever be made ?
and a total lack of genderqueer characters
You know which game has a total lack of genderqueer characters ?
Pong. It has no Genderqueer characters. It has no gendered characters at all. In fact, it has no characters.
Because that's the kind of content that's largely being opposed;
No one is opposing you making a game about Genderqueer folks who don't save people in distress.
People are opposed to you trying to turn Mario into a Genderqueer drag queen that simply walks in a player picked direction (any direction, wouldn't want to offend lefties!) with no actual goal (no coins, that implies the evils of Capitalism. No mushrooms, as drugs and the war on drugs is a tool of oppression for minorities. No princesses, as that creates a negative gender stereotype. No Bowser or Koopas or Gumbas, as animal cruelty is vile).
Some of us just want to play Mario. You don't like it ? Feel free to pick another game in the vast catalog of thousands of other games that exist.
Is it that bad that they try to appeal to several audiences at the same time?
It's a good way to make a bad product yes. If you try to please everyone, you're most likely to simply end up pleasing no one.
People seem to think gaming is a dude's world. Roberta Williams was great but I personally preferred Quest for Glory, which was made by Lory Ann Cole and her husband (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coles#Lori_Ann_Cole)
It's funny to see the new generation of "We need women in gaming!" ignore all the great women made games we had growing up, where the gender of who made the game didn't matter so much as the fun we had playing it. No one cared that Roberta or Lory Ann were women, we cared that Sierra's adventure games were top-notch entertainment.
Bro culture is when guys share beers, meat on a BBQ and talk trucks and about how "hot" some of the ladies are.
It's the same thing as a bunch of women getting together for a latte at Starbucks to discuss the new nail salon down the street, how much of a whore Kimberly is for sleeping with that disgusting pig Steve and how "Hot" Chad's shirt made his chest look.
Except for the men it's toxic. For the women it's empowering.
It's not like Riot Games is just a bunch of "Dudebros", there's a bunch of SJW types that work there too, none of this is actually new. Riot Games is a mess. On both sides of the political spectrum. Their game community is cancerous, their internal politics are screwed.
If anything, that "Boss" that was "touching balls" wasn't even a "Bro" to begin with, just your typical Male Feminist Ally, which (made up stat) have higher per-capita rates of sexual assault than normal males.
The fact that you think a game can not be made that appeals to both genders is an indication of where the cluelessness resides.
The fact a "Young male targetted" exists, a "Young female targetted" game also exists, doesn't preclude a 3rd game, "Young people, both genders" from also existing.
Again, I don't get what "special games" you need to exist that don't currently exist. You seem under the impression that 1 of thousands of games targetting a particular demographic means that people of all races, genders, sexualities can enjoy the same crop of games we currently have.
What is so gender specific about Civilization VI ? The Sims 3 ? What is race specific about Need for Speed ?
Actually, there's a lot to be said for gaming companies to hire both women and minorities; these are both groups that it would be valuable to have as customers, but which aren't very well served.
How sexist do you have to be to believe women and minorities need "special" games and can't just play what everyone else plays.
Spawning tanks materializing out of thin air = Game mechanic. Women with Cyborg arms that single handedly took down a Nazi heavy water plant = Design element that contradicts the historical setting.
One is required for gameplay, the other is pandering. Not a hard concept, except for ideologues trying to pretend this shit is normal and acceptable. It has nothing to do with "wahmen in games". Some of the best games feature women protagonists. It has to do with shipping a WWII era historical shooter literred with non-game mechanics anachronisms.
Far Cry 5 had the absolute OPPOSITE controversy, and it's easy to see by the fact the "complaining" is coming from the people praising BFV. Namely, TheVerge, Vox, Polygon and other SJW pandering "gaming" blogs suddenly writing negative pieces about Far Cry 5 :
Ever since its reveal nearly a year ago, Far Cry 5 has invited controversy. Whereas most shooters have players aim their weapons at zombies, demons, or Nazis, Far Cry 5 takes place in Montana, and its enemies are American citizens who bear a strong resemblance to the stereotypical image of a modern, young white supremacist. The first piece of art for the game was a re-creation of The Last Supper, but with Southern hipsters wielding guns and knives and a tablecloth that was an alternate reality version of the American flag.
In the months since, the developers at Ubisoft Montreal have been hesitant to draw any true parallels between the gameâ(TM)s world and the real world. And after playing a few dozen hours of the game, the reason for their reticence is clear: Far Cry 5 doesnâ(TM)t have anything to say about race in America. It doesnâ(TM)t have much to say at all. Itâ(TM)s a big, dumb action game with an artificial sheen implying depth.
How disingenuous to you have to be to pretend both games received the same kind of "controversy".
"This game doesn't cater to my particular sexual preferences and state of being even though it has nothing to do with sexual preferences or states of being" = imagined victimhood
"We changed the game to pander to this group's particular sexual preferences,at the detriment of design elements that drew in our target audience, completely changing the game for the worse" = actual "victimhood" (aka, actual reason to dislike what is happening, not "victimhood", no one is pretending they're EA's victims here).
Why is it always about being a "victim" with folks on your side ? You can dislike things and events without being a frickin' victim.
I was talking any the multiplayer. Where the tanks materialize out of thin air.
Game mechanic. It's a video game, some elements are purely there for the sake of the gaming actually being playable.
Women with Cybernetics attachments that couldn't possibly have existed in the WWII era are not gameplay mechanics. They're design elements.
You want Women with Cyborg arms fighting in wars ? Make Women with Cyborg Arms Warfare V. Don't pollute Battlefield, a WWII era franchise with that crap.
and where the objectives have nothing to do with actual historical events
Why are you lying ?
Your first 2 elements are game mechanics, while we're discussing design and narrative concepts. Mixing up the 2 is dishonest.
But this last one, where the heck do you get off literally lying. The story of BF V's single player campaign *IS* a historical event. They way they portray it is ahistorical though, because instead of actually telling you how the Norwegians dealt with the Nazi heavy water plant, they made up a Mother/daughter mary sue scenario.
That *IS* part of the issue with BF V's entire design : it's ahistorical. If you wanted to play a Fantasy War game, there are a metric ton of those that exist. There's even one about a little girl that tames huge dinosaurs and it's pretty great (Horizon Dawn). The point is BFV is a WWII game. Not a "Fantasy War" game.
It's a WWII game. Why the heck would it have women soldiers with cybernetic prosthetics in it ?
The offended ones are the ones complaining every video game needs a token character of every race and gender (all 10,000 of them) in them. The same ones who made it so we now have unskippable disclaimers that says "This game was developed by a diverse team of different genders, religions and sexualities" as if that matters at all. What happened to just listing the names of the team in the credits ?
People wouldn't make a fuss about all this crap being added to video games, if there wasn't a bunch of offended people forcing companies to add it in the first place. It's not like firing up a text editor and compiling code is something only men can do. If women or minorities or whatever want to make games, they can. Co-opting established properties instead of making their own is the issue here.
You skip over the part where the Paul Ryan led house then voted on a bill with 5.7 Billion Wall funding that Trump said he would sign.
The bill went back to the Senate, where Mitch McConnell didn't manage to secure the 9 Democrat votes he needed to pass it with a 60-40 vote, so the bill never went to the floor.
So a House approved bill with 5.7 Billion was voted on and passed following Trump's request for it. The Senate Democrats simply failed to go through with it.
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
CBP, the guys actually doing the Border enforcement, disagree. Sorry if I trust the "boots on the ground" more than I trust a nameless Republican you didn't even bother to name.
Here is Obama's CBP Patrol Chief, Mark Morgan, which was asked to step down by Trump, telling you the Wall is important :
There's no "Crisis" at the border, if there was, a wall wouldn't solve it. It's all just a pet project so Trump can stroke his ego
CBP is the one asking for a wall. A wall funded by Democrats in 2006, again in 2013 with bi-partisan support. Again supported by Hillary herself in 2015 while campaigning.
A Wall wouldn't solve 100% of the illegal immigration issue, but it does address a part of it. To say otherwise is disingenuous and to say it's Trump's vanity project when it's been in construction for decades is hilariously misinformed on your part.
The data from other countries and from CBP's own studies of walled vs non-walled areas is clear : Crossings dramatically decrease where there are walls.
"The wall is a failure because people go to where there is no wall!".
Also, the parts that were "busted" are NOT the Steel slats part, they are simple wire fences. CBP's current proposal would change those simple wire fences to the type of fencing you see on McAllen TX, namely, the very thick and solid steel slats. Good luck griding one of those down in a timely fashion.
Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better.
No, Trump's Wall is exactly what is already installed in many parts of Texas and other bordering states. Large, thick Steel Slats, as that is what CBP's current proposal is. Replace wire fencing with Steel Slats and close the open portions of the current Steel Slat wall.
Because nothing of this has to do with Trump, and it's been a bi-partisan goal that has seen implementation already in many areas. Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency. Previous administrations contributed to this barrier already, Democrats voted for it, they just have done it on a slower time table.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative. That you don't understand and simply quote "democrat talking points post 2016" is not surprising, but it sure is dishonest.
You realise that about every presidency since the 1980s has had Governement Shutdowns in the US right ?
This is not exactly a "Trump" thing. If the news is telling you that this is exclusive to Trump, you are watching Fake News from people with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
You need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. That requires DEMOCRATS.
The REPUBLICAN house actually passed a 5.7 Billion Wall bill before christmas, the Senate didn't vote on it because they lacked, *GASP* 9 DEMOCRAT votes.
Stop blaming the wrong party here. It's been the same story for 2 years. "But you control the Senate!" they say as they conveniently skip over the Republicans only having 51 seats (now 53 (?) ).
Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.
The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands. From their findings following the initial 2006 Secure Fencing Act :
For example, Vitiello stated that in 2005 Yuma Sector was âoeinundated with illegal cross-border incursions.â There were 138,549 illegal alien apprehensions, according to a CBP case study.
From 2006â"2007, after adding 29 miles of primary pedestrian wall, 9.1 miles of lighting, 9 miles of all-weather roads, a bridge along the border, and 603 agents, Yuma Sector experienced an 82 percent decrease in illegal entries. In addition, Yuma saw a 95 percent decrease in agent assaults from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2015, the study reports.
The 700 miles built of fencing simply isn't enough. Walls are effective, every country who has implemented a type of border barrier has seen dramatic drops in border crossings. To deny that is to deny reality.
But no, tell us how this is not simply democrats not wanting Trump to get credit for something they themselves have failed to fully implement. They don't want the "Trump Wall", but let's be clear : Democrats are for a wall, because it WORKS. They just want it to be a DEMOCRAT Wall.
That is frankly your opinion, not a fact. You seem to be operating on a very specific and strict definition of Fake news. I simply call what you refer to as "Lying".
My definition of Fake news is more of an umbrella term that encompasses all types of media malfaisance, and applies to both "bloggers" and also mainstream sources.
You do realise there's a bit of irony in you trying to pass off your opinion as fact, and then claiming that what others that disagree with you are doing is causing social harm right ? Because that's Fake news in a nutshell. Push opinion based content out disguised as objective reporting, and claim the other side of the debate is causing harm to society by refusing to accept your "facts" that are simply opinion.
Republican gerrymandering results in Democrat congress representatives, are done to preserve minority community voting influence and are more balanced in population distribution.
From your link. Seems your link justifying Il-4 actually dispels the myth of Republican gerrymandering rather than support it uh....
In attempting to counter my point, you actually supported the notion that Republicans donâ(TM)t cheat. Good job.
Slashdot Mirror
damsel in distress
So you're saying Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros shouldn't ever be made ?
and a total lack of genderqueer characters
You know which game has a total lack of genderqueer characters ?
Pong. It has no Genderqueer characters. It has no gendered characters at all. In fact, it has no characters.
Because that's the kind of content that's largely being opposed;
No one is opposing you making a game about Genderqueer folks who don't save people in distress.
People are opposed to you trying to turn Mario into a Genderqueer drag queen that simply walks in a player picked direction (any direction, wouldn't want to offend lefties!) with no actual goal (no coins, that implies the evils of Capitalism. No mushrooms, as drugs and the war on drugs is a tool of oppression for minorities. No princesses, as that creates a negative gender stereotype. No Bowser or Koopas or Gumbas, as animal cruelty is vile).
Some of us just want to play Mario. You don't like it ? Feel free to pick another game in the vast catalog of thousands of other games that exist.
Is it that bad that they try to appeal to several audiences at the same time?
It's a good way to make a bad product yes. If you try to please everyone, you're most likely to simply end up pleasing no one.
People seem to think gaming is a dude's world. Roberta Williams was great but I personally preferred Quest for Glory, which was made by Lory Ann Cole and her husband (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coles#Lori_Ann_Cole)
It's funny to see the new generation of "We need women in gaming!" ignore all the great women made games we had growing up, where the gender of who made the game didn't matter so much as the fun we had playing it. No one cared that Roberta or Lory Ann were women, we cared that Sierra's adventure games were top-notch entertainment.
Bro culture is when guys share beers, meat on a BBQ and talk trucks and about how "hot" some of the ladies are.
It's the same thing as a bunch of women getting together for a latte at Starbucks to discuss the new nail salon down the street, how much of a whore Kimberly is for sleeping with that disgusting pig Steve and how "Hot" Chad's shirt made his chest look.
Except for the men it's toxic. For the women it's empowering.
You are saying that people should stop complaining about their boss touching their balls and farting in their faces?
No, we're saying that Excluding male players from a panel at a convention is wrong :
https://www.polygon.com/2018/9...
It's not like Riot Games is just a bunch of "Dudebros", there's a bunch of SJW types that work there too, none of this is actually new. Riot Games is a mess. On both sides of the political spectrum. Their game community is cancerous, their internal politics are screwed.
If anything, that "Boss" that was "touching balls" wasn't even a "Bro" to begin with, just your typical Male Feminist Ally, which (made up stat) have higher per-capita rates of sexual assault than normal males.
'Derpression Quest' is a terrible game that nobody plays non-ironically.
I much prefer the reboot, Doki Doki Literature Club.
The fact that you think a game can not be made that appeals to both genders is an indication of where the cluelessness resides.
The fact a "Young male targetted" exists, a "Young female targetted" game also exists, doesn't preclude a 3rd game, "Young people, both genders" from also existing.
Again, I don't get what "special games" you need to exist that don't currently exist. You seem under the impression that 1 of thousands of games targetting a particular demographic means that people of all races, genders, sexualities can enjoy the same crop of games we currently have.
What is so gender specific about Civilization VI ? The Sims 3 ? What is race specific about Need for Speed ?
Tell that to DICE.
Pretty sure that's what he just did. He's not saying anything different than what was said yesterday : Get woke, go broke.
How clueless do you have to be to believe games targeted at young white men may contain things that turn off other groups?
Can you explain to me what the difference is between a "young white men" game vs a say "young black men" game ?
Or how the presence of a "Young men" game makes it so "Young female" games can't exist ?
Clueless is the proper word, you just aimed it at the wrong target.
Actually, there's a lot to be said for gaming companies to hire both women and minorities; these are both groups that it would be valuable to have as customers, but which aren't very well served.
How sexist do you have to be to believe women and minorities need "special" games and can't just play what everyone else plays.
Game mechanics vs design.
Spawning tanks materializing out of thin air = Game mechanic.
Women with Cyborg arms that single handedly took down a Nazi heavy water plant = Design element that contradicts the historical setting.
One is required for gameplay, the other is pandering. Not a hard concept, except for ideologues trying to pretend this shit is normal and acceptable. It has nothing to do with "wahmen in games". Some of the best games feature women protagonists. It has to do with shipping a WWII era historical shooter literred with non-game mechanics anachronisms.
Far Cry 5 had the absolute OPPOSITE controversy, and it's easy to see by the fact the "complaining" is coming from the people praising BFV. Namely, TheVerge, Vox, Polygon and other SJW pandering "gaming" blogs suddenly writing negative pieces about Far Cry 5 :
https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
Literally :
Ever since its reveal nearly a year ago, Far Cry 5 has invited controversy. Whereas most shooters have players aim their weapons at zombies, demons, or Nazis, Far Cry 5 takes place in Montana, and its enemies are American citizens who bear a strong resemblance to the stereotypical image of a modern, young white supremacist. The first piece of art for the game was a re-creation of The Last Supper, but with Southern hipsters wielding guns and knives and a tablecloth that was an alternate reality version of the American flag.
In the months since, the developers at Ubisoft Montreal have been hesitant to draw any true parallels between the gameâ(TM)s world and the real world. And after playing a few dozen hours of the game, the reason for their reticence is clear: Far Cry 5 doesnâ(TM)t have anything to say about race in America. It doesnâ(TM)t have much to say at all. Itâ(TM)s a big, dumb action game with an artificial sheen implying depth.
How disingenuous to you have to be to pretend both games received the same kind of "controversy".
imagined victimhood.
"This game doesn't cater to my particular sexual preferences and state of being even though it has nothing to do with sexual preferences or states of being" = imagined victimhood
"We changed the game to pander to this group's particular sexual preferences,at the detriment of design elements that drew in our target audience, completely changing the game for the worse" = actual "victimhood" (aka, actual reason to dislike what is happening, not "victimhood", no one is pretending they're EA's victims here).
Why is it always about being a "victim" with folks on your side ? You can dislike things and events without being a frickin' victim.
I was talking any the multiplayer. Where the tanks materialize out of thin air.
Game mechanic. It's a video game, some elements are purely there for the sake of the gaming actually being playable.
Women with Cybernetics attachments that couldn't possibly have existed in the WWII era are not gameplay mechanics. They're design elements.
You want Women with Cyborg arms fighting in wars ? Make Women with Cyborg Arms Warfare V. Don't pollute Battlefield, a WWII era franchise with that crap.
How is this so complicated ?
and where the objectives have nothing to do with actual historical events
Why are you lying ?
Your first 2 elements are game mechanics, while we're discussing design and narrative concepts. Mixing up the 2 is dishonest.
But this last one, where the heck do you get off literally lying. The story of BF V's single player campaign *IS* a historical event. They way they portray it is ahistorical though, because instead of actually telling you how the Norwegians dealt with the Nazi heavy water plant, they made up a Mother/daughter mary sue scenario.
That *IS* part of the issue with BF V's entire design : it's ahistorical. If you wanted to play a Fantasy War game, there are a metric ton of those that exist. There's even one about a little girl that tames huge dinosaurs and it's pretty great (Horizon Dawn). The point is BFV is a WWII game. Not a "Fantasy War" game.
Who are the perpetually offended ones here?
It's a WWII game. Why the heck would it have women soldiers with cybernetic prosthetics in it ?
The offended ones are the ones complaining every video game needs a token character of every race and gender (all 10,000 of them) in them. The same ones who made it so we now have unskippable disclaimers that says "This game was developed by a diverse team of different genders, religions and sexualities" as if that matters at all. What happened to just listing the names of the team in the credits ?
People wouldn't make a fuss about all this crap being added to video games, if there wasn't a bunch of offended people forcing companies to add it in the first place. It's not like firing up a text editor and compiling code is something only men can do. If women or minorities or whatever want to make games, they can. Co-opting established properties instead of making their own is the issue here.
Sometimes, the "Russian Bots" are simply Democratic operatives trying to invent a "Russia!" narrative :
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...
You skip over the part where the Paul Ryan led house then voted on a bill with 5.7 Billion Wall funding that Trump said he would sign.
The bill went back to the Senate, where Mitch McConnell didn't manage to secure the 9 Democrat votes he needed to pass it with a 60-40 vote, so the bill never went to the floor.
So a House approved bill with 5.7 Billion was voted on and passed following Trump's request for it. The Senate Democrats simply failed to go through with it.
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
CBP, the guys actually doing the Border enforcement, disagree. Sorry if I trust the "boots on the ground" more than I trust a nameless Republican you didn't even bother to name.
Here is Obama's CBP Patrol Chief, Mark Morgan, which was asked to step down by Trump, telling you the Wall is important :
https://www.newsweek.com/obama...
When did Slashdot start being more trusting of the managers instead of the techies doing the actual grunt work ? Because ORANGE MAN BAD ?
There's no "Crisis" at the border, if there was, a wall wouldn't solve it. It's all just a pet project so Trump can stroke his ego
CBP is the one asking for a wall. A wall funded by Democrats in 2006, again in 2013 with bi-partisan support. Again supported by Hillary herself in 2015 while campaigning.
A Wall wouldn't solve 100% of the illegal immigration issue, but it does address a part of it. To say otherwise is disingenuous and to say it's Trump's vanity project when it's been in construction for decades is hilariously misinformed on your part.
The data from other countries and from CBP's own studies of walled vs non-walled areas is clear : Crossings dramatically decrease where there are walls.
You Acosta'd your own argument.
"The wall is a failure because people go to where there is no wall!".
Also, the parts that were "busted" are NOT the Steel slats part, they are simple wire fences. CBP's current proposal would change those simple wire fences to the type of fencing you see on McAllen TX, namely, the very thick and solid steel slats. Good luck griding one of those down in a timely fashion.
Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better.
No, Trump's Wall is exactly what is already installed in many parts of Texas and other bordering states. Large, thick Steel Slats, as that is what CBP's current proposal is. Replace wire fencing with Steel Slats and close the open portions of the current Steel Slat wall.
Because nothing of this has to do with Trump, and it's been a bi-partisan goal that has seen implementation already in many areas. Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency. Previous administrations contributed to this barrier already, Democrats voted for it, they just have done it on a slower time table.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative. That you don't understand and simply quote "democrat talking points post 2016" is not surprising, but it sure is dishonest.
You realise that about every presidency since the 1980s has had Governement Shutdowns in the US right ?
This is not exactly a "Trump" thing. If the news is telling you that this is exclusive to Trump, you are watching Fake News from people with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Pro-tip :
You need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. That requires DEMOCRATS.
The REPUBLICAN house actually passed a 5.7 Billion Wall bill before christmas, the Senate didn't vote on it because they lacked, *GASP* 9 DEMOCRAT votes.
Stop blaming the wrong party here. It's been the same story for 2 years. "But you control the Senate!" they say as they conveniently skip over the Republicans only having 51 seats (now 53 (?) ).
Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.
The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands. From their findings following the initial 2006 Secure Fencing Act :
https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/...
For example, Vitiello stated that in 2005 Yuma Sector was âoeinundated with illegal cross-border incursions.â There were 138,549 illegal alien apprehensions, according to a CBP case study.
From 2006â"2007, after adding 29 miles of primary pedestrian wall, 9.1 miles of lighting, 9 miles of all-weather roads, a bridge along the border, and 603 agents, Yuma Sector experienced an 82 percent decrease in illegal entries. In addition, Yuma saw a 95 percent decrease in agent assaults from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2015, the study reports.
The 700 miles built of fencing simply isn't enough. Walls are effective, every country who has implemented a type of border barrier has seen dramatic drops in border crossings. To deny that is to deny reality.
But no, tell us how this is not simply democrats not wanting Trump to get credit for something they themselves have failed to fully implement. They don't want the "Trump Wall", but let's be clear : Democrats are for a wall, because it WORKS. They just want it to be a DEMOCRAT Wall.
That is frankly your opinion, not a fact. You seem to be operating on a very specific and strict definition of Fake news. I simply call what you refer to as "Lying".
My definition of Fake news is more of an umbrella term that encompasses all types of media malfaisance, and applies to both "bloggers" and also mainstream sources.
You do realise there's a bit of irony in you trying to pass off your opinion as fact, and then claiming that what others that disagree with you are doing is causing social harm right ? Because that's Fake news in a nutshell. Push opinion based content out disguised as objective reporting, and claim the other side of the debate is causing harm to society by refusing to accept your "facts" that are simply opinion.
Republican gerrymandering results in Democrat congress representatives, are done to preserve minority community voting influence and are more balanced in population distribution.
From your link. Seems your link justifying Il-4 actually dispels the myth of Republican gerrymandering rather than support it uh....
In attempting to counter my point, you actually supported the notion that Republicans donâ(TM)t cheat. Good job.