I've noticed that the written language often unveils some clues to if people are projecting their own biases and interpretations by the use of "I feel" rather than "I think".
When you write "I think" before putting out an idea, you generally want to explain why you think something. When you write "I feel" you get a catch-out-of-jail card where your own feelings inform your outlook on the world. So if you feel prosecuted or feel others are prosecuted constantly, you might be irrationally "feeling" that everything is potentially out to get you, or out to get those you claim to speak for.
I know from myself that I have falled into this trap of using "I feel" to justify my own bias. Probably because it's intellectually easy, and because sometimes I feel lazy. I've observed many times that when it comes to "social agenda" from the left, it is often relayed through the use of "I feel". Others are supposed to take and accept the argument with the use of "I feel" to explain the persons outrage or argument. But really, there is no justification. The world is not how you view it. Because how you view the world is totally distorted by your feelings. And that is true for all of us.
This is also one of those things were being an expert or highly knowledgeable of a subject can betray you. You feel a natural authority in that you are right because of your experiences or knowledge. You see that, particularly in Academia. Experts on subjects are the most unwilling to be open to the idea that there is more to it than they know. Ones own experience creates a bias that distorts them from how things actually are. Experience, expertise and being knowledgeable something counts for something. But stepping aside and not vetting yourself as an expert is a red flag to ones own credibility. Even if you know 100000% that someone else is wrong, instead of emotionally charging your argumentation based through a veil of "I feel" or name dropping your groups, suffrage or experiences to dismiss someone else instead of focusing on understanding your opponents logic.
If you really want to "win" over someone in an ideological contest, understand their position and motivation better than they do. Be better at them in why they believe in their own talking points- And from there, find flaws in their logic that rips it apart from within.
A lot of the time when talking about subjects that are close to emotions, we will have biased and radical viewpoints. And this is a spectrum we all belong on. There is nobody here whose ideological opinions won't be easily influenced by a number of factors.
The smell of trash for example.
I've not played Rimworld, but that you'd take attempts of inclusion directly to comparing being queer or transgender to being a psychopath because the games outline RPG traits in a certain manner, seems like a stretch. I do believe most things are heteronormative, since the vast majority of people are heterosexual, and as far as I know- Most LGBT people are not in disagreements about that? RPG games are about choice and playing how you want. Since the game allows outlines these possibilities in a world of games that don't represent these groups, I am not sure if these PCGamer statements are actually anything but harmful towards LGBT. Doesn't sound the writer gave a shit about anyone other than wanting to beat the reader with such a narrow and singular interpretation? At least that is how those specific paragraphs read to me. Doesn't sound like the writer has empathy for the readers or even the players.
