so you're just angry? or you just like to be an ass online? none of your critiques make sense

Does that now mean someone gets to cite me in an article about hippopotami?

look at the youtube video. it's a video response to the original article which in turn is a summary of the paper and the paper is what we are really talking about. my response to the video was to point out that the source he's critiquing doesn't give the strawman he wants it to. not a hard argument to understand.

It's a worthless click-bait piece with zero evidence for anything in it

that's my point: it is about a paper that we can't see (but clearly the paper has the data and analysis) and this guy and others are not accurately representing what the paper either clearly or probably says and instead rely on strawmen that are easier to defeat.

It's a worthless click-bait piece with zero evidence for anything in it, complaining that right wingers supposedly co-opt medieval imagery. That alone can be disproven by watching any right wing show on television. Not very many medival things there are there?

well this is self-refuting. no, that's not the claim and if you think that refutes what the person who wrote the paper is saying you're just not thinking and falling prey to the same sort of bullshit sharing that happens when people say parrot stupid interpretations studies that are ideologically useful.

with another opinion piece,

that's not an opinion piece, it's reporting on this:

Medieval representations in video games was the focus of Victoria Cooper’s paper, Playing Politics: Exploring Nationalism and Conservatism in Fantasy Video Games, which was given earlier this month at the International Medieval Congress. Part of the session, The Use and Abuse of the Middle Ages in the Modern World, IV: Nationalism and Identity,

does it throw in lots of opinion at the end? yeah, and it would be a better article as a straight summary but i don't understand your claims.