but let me state for the record OP doesn't speak for me, or most of the reasonable feminists or social justice advocates I converse with
You're using even stronger qualifiers than I did. I said "many." And you say "most." How many do you converse with? I don't know what most even means. I said many to be as vague as possible.
and I denounce his stated purpose of trying to "get rid" of objectionable content.
That's great. We're on the same side on that one then. I have a feeling not everyone denounces it. A great way to quickly clear that up though is to just ask them what their goals are, and what they would like to see happen. That way everyone can just speak for themselves and there's no assuming going on.
I always thought the Dragon's Crown and God of War issues were trivial microscopic distractions from the broader structural issues I would prefer to talk about. But discussion of structural issues and broad trends rarely seems to get any traction when it's so much easier to start an incendiary topic about a single miniscule surface-level example.
Sure, I agree. I'm not the one pushing these debates either and I don't think they accomplish anything very useful.
So what do we say about the people who do push these debates?
If you think back faceless, can you recall all the different times I've mentioned that these types of debates were pushing towards self-censorship, and that this was the goal? Can you remember all the times, in literally almost every one of these threads you would pop in and insult me for wildly jumping to conclusions? Well in this case I am proven right, and it's literally stated word for word in the OP - probably the only time it will ever happen - and you are still trying to completely downplay the whole thing. I'm not a narcissist for assuming that people pushing these kinds of debates might be interested in "defeating" certain games, effectively censoring them. I was right.
So, you want to make it clear that you're not one of those? Fair enough, I totally believe you. But you're not everyone, and I think it's unfair to me to wash away this point like it doesn't matter, after how much you've jumped on me for this exact issue for almost a year. At least admit I got this right, because I did.
If people wanted to spend more time talking about broader structural issues instead of gotcha witch hunts, I'd be all for it. Personally, I don't find that more difficult. That's how I naturally see cause and effect in most cases.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My concern is that you're assuming the worst about a large number of people when the specific thing you fear is only applicable to a small, vocal bunch.
Well, neither of us know the size of this bunch. We don't know if it's large, or small. The best way to clear that up is for people to just speak for themselves, which is what I'm advocating. That requires zero assuming.
I'm sure that there are some people out there that absolutely want to take the games you love away from you.
I am sure too.
However, I think many more just want better representations of women/minorities in gaming. And that's it.
You're using the same qualifier I did, "many." I'm not going to jump on your point and try and pick it apart because of that. I understand what you mean, and that's just how it is written grammatically. Yes, I agree with you. Many people don't want that kind of toxic, persecution-based self-censorship.
There's nothing specific about that to articulate. I suppose censoring games that you enjoy might be one path to that end that you can be fearful of. However, I think many reasonable people are simply trying to encourage game creators to move outside of their comfort zone a bit and embrace that this could be a big tent hobby.
Okay, you acknowledged my fear as legitimate. Thank you. I'm listening.
And to that end, it's necessary to elucidate what "the problem" is by citing examples. However, I've always tried to caution that singling out a specific title should mainly be seen as a learning exercise. "This game I think demonstrates something that I find egregious, but mainly because it is part of a much bigger problem." That shouldn't automatically evoke a reaction of "oh my God, by citing that title they're saying it shouldn't exist!" The broad problem that many care about is actually better suited not getting bogged down in specifics because I think it often derails the conversation. However, if you can't highlight specific examples of what you're talking about so that people can get a feel for where you're coming from, then it becomes an issue where it seems like you are manufacturing criticism in regards to a phantom problem.
To be honest with you, I can live with that, and that seems totally fine. Learning exercises, sophisticated critiques, and discussions are fine. Using examples to make a point about broader issues is fine. I might disagree with some of those criticisms, but I could live with that.
What we're seeing though, which you acknowledged does exist, is sustained campaigns of negative PR that are not learning exercises, but are designed to crush products into non-existence. That's what gets people worked up, and for good reason.
Big tent means that everything goes. It means we should be discussing how we can make more products that appeal to people who feel they don't currently get enough. It doesn't mean we should be discussing how to make less products we don't like. The word "less" should never be a part of the equation. If we look at film, we don't get more oscar caliber movies by making less porn movies. You get more oscar caliber movies by having great writers make interesting content that's carried out by great directors and actors. It doesn't hurt if those kinds of projects make enough money to be profitable, so more get made.
If we're talking about that kind of big tent strategy, I'd be willing to bet that almost all of the people that argue against social justice criticism would be on your side. If people stop trying to crush things they like, then they wouldn't be defensive. It's pretty logical. If people instead focus on creating things missing from the market currently, occasionally using things they don't like as an illustrative, learning-oriented example, then I think people would be fine.
That's not what is currently happening though. I've made this point in threads before, and been called a misogynist who wants to keep the status quo. It's frustrating, to say the least, because I think this would literally stop the arguing and allow
everyone to work towards getting the games they want.