I'm afraid, I'm getting a little bit tired of arguing in circles because people either fail to engage with everything I've written, or because they constantly shift the subject of discussion in order to regurgitate the same old arguments again and again. I don't mean this in a condescending manner, but it's one of the reasons why this discussion mostly screeching to a halt.
In point
1 of my original post I've already explained why the assumption that "everything is political" is
antithesis to modern democracies. I've even referenced the text of a rather influential philosophical thinker in order to convey the reason why politicizing the private sphere is a very bad idea. In point
6, I elaborated on the differences between criticism and agenda pushing. I even linked a video to Zappa in order to make it more palatable, alas all of it was quickly ignored.
I then went on and gave you a more theoretical argument, coming from the notions of political science. Again, I refuted your claim that "
all games are political" and made a point as to why "
games are about fun" is a very valid concern. Instead of fully engaging with it, you cherry picked the aspects that seemed to confirm your point of view and twisted my word as to make them seem in accordance with your position.
I don't think you find it hard to understand what I'm trying to say, on the contrary you make the impression to be a rather smart person. English is not my native language, so I apologize if it's not up to par, or you are simply arguing in bad faith, I dunno...
Yet here we are, repeating the same argument that you already presented in your OP. The problem is not the presence of '
political themes' or "
non-white or non-straight or non-male protagonist/protagonists" as you claim. The problem is that minorities are abused as tokens in order to push the political agenda of social authoritarians and to earn brownie points among a politically aggressive vocal minority. Hence why these protagonists are often reduced to a single defining trait, like their gender, sexuality or skin-color... whatever current flavor of the month in american identity politics.
The Ghostbusters remake, which was mostly marketed through its female cast, would be a good example. Journalists and social-media opinion-makers saw it fit to drag James Rolfe, a nerd,
through the mud for merely refusing to see the movie. Accusing him of being a '
misogynistic man-baby' when, in fact, the movie suffered from a
myriad of problems not related to the female cast.
People react strongly to the fact that leftist authoritarians primarily view games not as a form of entertainment, but as a tool of political and cultural education (or rather indoctrination) as
already evidenced by
InterMusketeer
. They seek to influence
polity and policy changes through media, hence why products adhering to authoritarian left talking-points are rightfully perceived as '
agenda pushing'. These products are akin to '
bible games' that were often produced by the religious right in order to spread christian values and ideals. Libertarians hold up color- and gender-blindness as inclusive values, they view all people as of equal worth and tend to judge them individually through their actions. Hence why they reject the notions of intersectuality and radical feminism who often reduce human beings to externally identifiable superficial characteristics, like their hetero/homo-sexuality, their whiteness or blackness, or whatever silly notions these people try to come up with in order to
segregate people.
Social authoritarians often seek to underline the importance of their cause by
rewriting history and people don't react kindly to that. Suddenly, Star Trek: Discovery is lauded for portraying the
first female black captain, completely ignoring the fact that Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew existed way before that. Both of these characters were hugely popular without
being reduced to their gender or color of their skin. We see the same going on with Black Panther, a movie that is lauded for its '
blackness' (not my term), never-mind the fact people were enjoying '
Blade' way before that (and MiB, Bad Boys, Independence Day, Steel...). These are only a few examples, but we have the same going on in video games and comics. Tolerant people didn't give a shit back then and they don't give a shit now.
Finally, social authoritarians tend to cultivate some kind of
hysterical hypersensitivity in order to spread their political views. Any perceived slight against their radical ideology is met with utmost outrage and retribution. Case in point would be the social-media shitstorm against
Pillars of Eternity for a little transsexual joke by a kickstarter backer on a random graveyard stone. Obsidian replied by changing the epitaph to an even funnier jab, "
a poem wrote in jest, was misread, they asked for his blood, so now he's just dead", or to apply the infamous words of Bill Maher: "
learn to take a joke". The social authoritarians are certainly aware that this kind of hypersensitivity (otherwise coined by the term
microaggression) is only
poisoning the well and driving people away, but they don't care because it's what keeps them in a positions of power and influence.
Hence why I tend to believe that their arguments are destructive by design, because they are not interested in the betterment of whatever community they are engaged in, but merely serve as a pretext to cultivate an uncritical fellowship and to strengthen their positions as opinion-makers and gate-keepers. I'm sorry, but when I have to read stuff like this...
...I can only but roll my eyes.