Please, you know as well as I do that Anita and her followers are
intersectional feminists. By calling it a 'basic feminist viewpoint' you purposefully make it seem as if she was representing feminism as a whole, by suppressing the fact that there are many different kinds of feminism.
She is the one producing the content, presenting these ideas, influencing people and earning the fame, so it's only natural that she is also the one who should respond to the criticism. You're only trying to
deresponsibilize her. Which is even funnier, considering the fact that her fanatical fanbase is constantly screeching at game developers to own their words and the messages presented within their games. But when the tables are turned, suddenly her participation is not required. That's just incredibly lazy.
Again, just trying to handwave her responsibility. Intentions do matter you know. I'd like to add that I've made my reasonable case against intersectionalism, nevertheless you failed to engage with it. So don't come here claiming that we've only talked about her personality.
Now you're just trying to reframe the discussion again. What people have been criticizing was the fact that the professional gaming outlets refused to engage with her message in a critical or nuanced manner, like they did with Jack Tompson for example. Instead they presented her word as incontestable truth, while vilifying the gamers and youtubers within the community who did the work
they were supposed to do. Hence doing incredible damage to the gaming community as a whole. You are the one denying that the gaming press holds any kind of responsibility.
Let me just quote
your own words here, I think they stand on their own:
To me, the problem was never bubbles or safe spaces. The problem is the stuff in the middle, it's trash. Where are the places that you can find good left-right debate, not people shouting over each other. The whole "we'll just throw everyone together and it'll all just work out" doesn't work beyond people trying to internet dunk on their opponent.
Don't come here expecting some kind of intellectual or moral vindication, you have your 'bubbles and safe spaces' for that. It's quite evident that you're not willing to compare your arguments to our own because that's exactly what "
throwing everyone together" is supposed to be. You don't want your views to be scrutinized, you want them affirmed. Subjectivity is nothing to be proud of, so excuse me for saying that, while I may
respect your feelings, I don't
care about them
in the sense that
objective truth is more important than subjective feelings. And yes,
truth hurts sometimes, we've all been there.
By the way, you 'critique' goes a lot further than mere criticism. By stating that any subjectively
perceived '-ism' in a video game is harmful you automatically imply that said game should not be played. Are Kingdom Come,
GTA V and
the Red String Club not enough? How many more games need to be subjected to your insufferable, intolerant, self-righteous and narrow-minded 'critique'?
That's just plain old sophistry and I'm not interested in that.
I.e. pandering to what their audience wants to hear.
So you agree that your ethical reasoning is flawed, yet you willfully ignore these problems in order to persuade people. Again, brilliant sophistry. I do not care about popular opinion, I only care about what is true.
I was not trying to make a point as to which ethical principle was the right one, that's a never-ending debate. I was merely trying to broaden your perspectives by showing you that other ethical theories exist and that what you're claiming is far from factual truth. Unfortunately you refused to engage, instead replying with a whole lot of assumptions, many of which aren't even coherent with each other. You could have learned something, but no, you decided to reply by employing some of the most banal stereotypes, merely reinforcing the assumption that your grasp on ethical science is severely lacking. Let me tell you why:
'The Golden Rule': No serious ethicist worth his salt is still relying on the Golden Rule, considering its
myriad problems. The Golden Rule does not ask of us to be kind and generous, nothing like that is mentioned in the rule, nor implied. For example, masochistic people gain pleasure from pain, the Golden Rule would give them the right to inflict pain upon others. Your very own feminist perspective is not even in agreement with the Golden Rule!
'Religion is the primal moral authority': Hearing something like that from someone on the far left is just too funny,
Hitchens would like a word with you. Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable on the religious right? Even funnier because that would imply that agnostics and atheists would be without morals. In fact, most ethical theories are purely secular and have absolutely nothing to do with religion. You are aware, I hope, that moral progress was the result of secularization, especially during
the age of enlightenment. So please, show come gratitude for those
explicitly rupturing with religious morality, thus laying the groundwork for your progressive ideals by risking their lives.
'Most people have heard of the Golden Rule, therefore it's true': Your
argumentum ad populum is not even an argument. 300 years ago, most people believed the earth was flat, so what? Would you rather adhere to something that is untrue in order to appeal to the purely subjective preferences of the majority? Yes, yes you would, let me repeat your words:
What you are proposing is nothing more than
moral populism, which is not only incredibly ignorant and manipulative, but doesn't even elevate your reasoning above the populist views of the far-right. But please, you keep telling yourself that '
the middle is trash'.
