I'm not even bothering to direct quote you; because you don't deserve it.
It's funny; that for all the babbling you make about respecting the opinions of others, you are more than eager to attack them relentlessly, despite how much you hate having your own challenged.
Zachary Amaranth said:
To be clear, your evidence for public responses, plural, seems to be one tweet which appears to need to be redefined to make the case. Are you saying this is the sum of the prominent public reactions (again, plural) to this effect?
Nice loaded question and deflection of the original point.
You nitpicked his article, then demanded more examples to justify the plurality of his claim.
This is a primer for "moving the goalposts".
Such as? Can you cite specific instances, preferably with links and/or direct quotes?
And when he did just that, you ignore the evidence and change your argument with weaseling (the word "seems" denies any firm point you might have had).
Now you aren't looking for plural evidence, but are trying to dismiss the evidence via accusing him of changing the context of the quotes. (Prophecy stated, and fulfilled; you moved the goalposts)
I have a more important question: what's your criteria?
But sure. Let's try this again: is this the sum total of your evidence? Is this what you're talking about? These two people, who are themselves colleagues, are the sum of the "popular" dissent that you're railing against? Why do you feel comments about the response validate your opinion piece about the game? Does McIntosh count as popular, with roughly the same followers as Rap Critic?
Nice entrapment scenario you've laid here; no matter what answer he gives you to justify his position, it won't matter because your own criteria is nebulous and arbitrary, and can be dismissed under any grounds you could invent.
But lets put some actual fucking context on the table here: "Is McIntosh popular?"
This point is disingenous, because Feminist Frequency is two people, with McIntosh as the writer, and Sarkeesian more the public face.
Sarkeesian ALONE has had numerous public speaking engagements, run several rounds on National Television (MSNBC, Colbert, and more), has been published in Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and is one of the prominent public figures currently in the gaming industry (to the point where she has done work with one of the biggest companies in the the business: EA)
FUTURE EDIT: And was recently invited to the UNITED NATIONS as a guest. She is THAT GOOD of a professional victim.
So, given the context of this being a piece on a gaming news site for gamers, Encaen's claim of them being "popular" (that is, well known to the public) is more than justified here.
Assert otherwise all you want; you're fooling nobody but yourself.
Do you really think rephrasing and adding new meaning counts as "logical analysis?"
What new meaning did he add with the rephrasing?
No, don't sit there and assert, PROVE YOUR GODDAMN POINT ZACH, WHAT NEW MEANING IS THERE?
You invoke logic here, but are employing none yourself in your attempt to keep Encaen under the gun.
Since you never give us this new meaning he made, we can only assume it exists purely in your head, and thus is arbitrary.
So, to wit, he didn't add new meaning; Sarkeesian and McIntosh displayed obvious disdain for the gamers cheering a display of fantasy violence. He gave you the verbatim tweets IN CONTEXT.
Either you are being deliberately dishonest here to discredit Encaen's opinion, or you actually have no idea what the literal meanings of Sarkeesian/McIntosh's statements are in context.
In either case you are in no position to be dictating to anyone what is being said on this subject.
The opinion piece seems to be exactly for the opposite reason, since it calls out the opinions of others solely on the basis that they don't share your values. You didn't welcome criticism, you chastised it and made it out to be a bigger deal than it appears to be.
"Than it appears to be".
Oh get over yourself. You aren't the grand arbiter on this or any issue here.
You don't get to dictate what is or isn't a reasonable degree of outrage to form an opinion on.
Especially when you attempt to conflate this with "moral panic" and the actual "should not exists" of the original Doom.
Your words seem to be at odds with what you say they mean, and seem to be at odds with the very basis for your claim. I attempted to seek clarification, and was denied. In the absence of such answers, I can only conclude that there isn't a strong foundational basis.
Feminist Frequency, a well known (popular) game critic entourage came out and complained about gamers getting excited for ultra-violence in a game based on ultra-violence. That may be their opinion, but it's an opinion stemming from puritanical bullshit.
The fact that someone else can point that out in an article while claiming to respect the opinions of others, IS NOT A MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THING. Because respecting someone's opinion is not the same as agreeing with it, a principle you like to espouse but in practice, violate almost fucking DAILY on this site.
In all of this, it's YOU are guilty of being unable to endure criticism for YOUR sacred cow (that woman in your profile picture).
The main difference, is that you think by never declaring your position that you can avoid confronting your own bias, even as you confront people with theirs.
It's a cheap, hypocritical tactic you invoke frequently, and goddamn it's high time someone called you out on it.
I also find this new notion of criticism to be particularly odd, in that it places a higher standard on video games than any other form of art/entertainment. It seems almost nationalistic in nature, decrying outsiders who don't understand how things really work.
And there you go with those weasel words again. "Seems". But I get why you do that, because the only other way to phrase those are in the expository stance "You are nationalists decrying outsiders", which is a blunt accusation.
As for the rest, it's pure projection on your part and thus invalid by default.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to be willing to answer me as to why games require a special standard under which to operate.
It helps if you actually ask the question before lamenting your lack of answers.
Or can we add "basic concept of time" to the list of things you have no clue about too?