So, basically, she's not actually talking about how video games need to be more feminist oriented, but rather is more ranting about a website / domain called "Feminist Frequency" that is effectively a group of the college grade "MEN ARE EVIL PIGS" feminists, but hey grew up playing video games.

Actually not a bad read, although it drags in a few places.

I partially blame the dolls they are using.
I don't think there was any consideration taken to find ethnically accurate dolls. Maybe that black doll was ugly. It looked ugly to me, and not because it was black.
I think doll makers and the companies purchasing the dolls need demand new scupts for different ethnicity. Just changing the colour, doesn't make it a black doll..., or an oriental, a native, or any other ethnicity.

Curious as to how people feel about "Kung Fu Shuffle" and "Shaolin Soccer" by Stephen Chow back in the 2000's? It fits the genre (of sorts), has comedy (although perhaps more oriental than western in sensibilities), and I've found them to be lots of fun. There's some parallels between him and Jackie, although Steven's not acted in a while.

Yes, she's great at pointing that out.

What's the solution?

Quota's of protagonists sex? Replacing "damsel" with "prince" in distress? Getting rid of chainmail bikinis?

Oh, and how do we propagate that to the entire entertainment industry?

There is nothing wrong with playing a prince and rescuing a princess. There is nothing wrong with the princess being helpless. There is nothing wrong with Femmeshep kicking the shit out of the reapers and saving every being in the known universe, one of the most badass female protagonists around. More female protagonists = great, bring it on, but that's no reason to throw out a trope as old as time (incidentally, a trope enjoyed by a great many women who like to watch sappy romances where the charming fellow rescues the woman from her crappy life...).

Her series predicates on the concept that players are too fucking dumb to understand the difference between real life and the game. That if you play Duke Nukem, you'll walk around slapping girls tits and saying the most inappropriate things you can think of.

It's exactly the same tripe that Jack Thompson was peddling back in the day, games change how you think. And, for most people (ie. the mentally stable...), it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Your upbringing and parental guidance, and the relationship your male role models have with women, are far more likely to determine whether or not a man is likely to be sexist/misogynist than a few games with scantily clad girls needing a big strong man to save them... Society has changed to become more accepting of race, creed, sexual orientation and, of course, women, and it will continue to become so even if the old trope of the princess is in another castle hangs around. It may take generations before inequality dies out, if it ever does. It's not something you can fix by complaining about games.

Far from being a "non-word", orientate is common usage in British English. Orient/orientate is one of those words where users of each form tend to regard their own as correct, and grumble about users of the "incorrect" form, but like so many such terms, both are correct. Orientate has been in use since the mid-19th century, according to Etymology Online.

As for aesthetic appeal, that doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not something is a word. You may not like it, but that's just a question of taste and context. It only sounds clumsy to those who don't live in places where it's commonly used; I'd be pretty confident in saying that "I oriented myself" sounds just as odd to a BE speaker as "I orientated myself" does to an AE speaker.

Not surprising that it's in the dictionary now. The reason it sticks out to me is because when I was in college and taking 3D digital art classes, it became a joke among my friends whenever an instructor would use the term "orientate" or "orientated". This was 18 years ago, so it saw plenty of use then, but at the time it was not in the dictionary, so it drove us nuts.
There were a lot of weird modes of speech from instructors then, like the ones that pronounced sphere as 'spear', or fillet as "fill-it", and biped as "bypt".
But really now, irregardless is in the dictionary too? What has the world come to!?

Sloppy in the sense that it means the same thing as 'oriented' but with extra letters, and those extra letters don't give it any extra aesthetic appeal, IMO.

It seems @artician may have been correct. This may be a non-word that saw such wide-spread use that it was legitimized, like irregardless.

"Orientated" is not a word.

Anyone notice the picture behind him changes? And then will change orientation?

Lots of interesting conversation on this video. I always thought that the gay stereotype was used as a social cue to kind of announce that one was gay. I'm not saying any particular person had to act that way just that it helped to identify as part of a certain group. The flamboyance of the character for me is annoying, but tolerable. Cock props, a-hole pictures, TMI on the lover definitely cross the line for me in the workplace regardless of gender / orientation.

@ChaosEngine wins the internet. He's exactly right, it's not about the orientation, it's about the overt, explicit nature. No one wants to hear about someone's sexual adventures in mixed company, straight or gay.

Hollywood, loves to fall back to a definite gay stereotype though.

Glee was actually guilty of this in the the first few seasons. Kurt, the gay character had a crush on Finn, the straight character, and not only that, they were step brothers. Kurt practically stalked Finn and was downright harassing at times. Yet Finn was portrayed as the jerk for not being "more accepting"

It's ironic, TV and movies had a large role in making America more accepting of homosexuality, but they also perpetuate some shitty stereotypes too. News flash, not all homosexuals are flaming interior decorators.

Oh and ACTUAL homophobes? You're not that good looking. Gays are actually able to restrain themselves from raping you in broad daylight. Shocking, I know.

You've just answered your own question.

The fact that the "target" is gay is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if Keys character was a lesbian or transgender or a straight white dude. As a general rule, people aren't comfortable with work acquaintances sharing intimate details of their sexual life, regardless of orientation.

Put it this way. Let's say that Keys character was a straight guy bragging about "nailing chicks" and Peeles character was a woman who turns out to be a lesbian. That behaviour would be seen as creepy at best and most likely sexual harassment.

The whole GoPro thing means nothing to me, I don't even own a Digital Video Camera. but for some reason, some people do take umbrage with how quickly they took over the market for action oriented personal video.
I find the scenario "interesting".

A rotary (Wankel) engine has a triangular device that acts as the piston, which rotates in a chamber close to a figure 8 shape. Each side of the triangle acts as it's own piston as it rotates, first intake through a port (no valve) then compression, detonation, expansion, and finally exhaust through another port (still no valve).
Radial engines (what I think you meant) are relatively normal piston driven engines where the pistons are arranged in a circle around the crank at a 90 deg angle from the cranks rotation. These are usually used in prop driven airplanes.
This motor arranges the pistons in the same orientation as the cranks rotation...a 90 deg difference from radial engines. This makes it far more compact, but also puts the pistons in a single, rotating, revolver like arrangement of cylinders. It's a bit of a combination of rotary and radial engine features.