Why are we afraid of criticism?

[WhiteNachos]

How is that not true? I've seen tons of critics saying 'stop doing X, stop doing Y'. X and Y might be things people enjoy.

And I've seen tons of gamers yell out that sexism, racism and homophobia are part of gaming culture and should be perserved.

What. Is. Your. Point?

Have you not been following the conversation?

Zach: critics aren't asking people to sacrifice their fun.
Me: Some of them are. Some of them are saying you should stop having X Y and Z in games and some people may enjoy those things.

And as an aside I highly doubt people flat out said "we should preserve sexism racism and homophobia in games", you (or someone else) probably argued that certain things were sexist/racist/whatever and they argued that they weren't and that they should stay.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Have you not been following the conversation?

Zach: critics aren't asking people to sacrifice their fun.
Me: Some of them are. Some of them are saying you should stop having X Y and Z in games and some people may enjoy those things.

And as an aside I highly doubt people flat out said "we should preserve sexism racism and homophobia in games", you (or someone else) probably argued that certain things were sexist/racist/whatever and they argued that they weren't and that they should stay.

Zach:

Well, except DA EVUl FEMINISTS on this site are actually still playing those games and most of the requests don't actually take away from the "other side" so that's false.

No. This is not what she said. At all.

I'm pretty sure Zach is a he. Also if you want there to be no more games featuring say scantily clad women that is taking away things form "the other side" if some people enjoyed those things.

I linked an article with a quote. I paraphrased a bit when I quoted you so here in full:

"This is a community that's, you know, 15 or 20-years-old and the sexual harassment is part of a culture," said competitive fighting game player Aris "Aris" Bakhtanians on a recent live stream for Capcom's Cross Assault show, "and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community."

Background: Aris harassed a girl during a show, was asked to stop it so he lashed out that then the fighting game community would become like Starcrafts. He got quite a bit of support in the suggestion that the sexism needs to stay.

I'd consider the culture of pro Street Fighter (or whatever they were playing) to be different than gaming culture as a whole (that guy even mentioned Starcraft as a fanbase without that problem). Still leaves racism and homophobia unaccounted for.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

snip

For the most part I can agree. I bring this argument up on individual basis: This guy tried to lump critics (of a political / social aspect in games) from all over the web into a certain trope while the talk was about people on this site. I feel myself included in both: I am a person and frequent poster on this website as well as someone who enjoys to tear apart pretty much everything I get my hands on in regards of the social aspect. And neither of which hinders my true and childish enjoyment of everything.

I don't really try to limp a movement / ideology to gaming here. I try to compare groups of people (and among gamers there exist communities that share common interests: My old regular TF2 server had his themes and it felt like a community). If I may quote from the R&P forum: The depiction of feminists as "raving extremist" has jack shit to do with the movement. It is a perception of an individuum about the group that he assumes to be feminists, mostly due to misunderstanding or cherry picking. I apply the same train of thought to my example: One can easy perceive the group of "gamers" as sexist based off some cherry picked examples.

Now to something your post got me thinking on:

I feel that you are on to something here. Gaming is the first medium to grow up in the modern multimedia age where some random globs from across the world can discuss topics in real time together anytime (for example you and I). While I won't judge if the amount of criticism that 'our' medium got in this aspect is compareable to any other I for sure can assume that the exposure to this kind of criticism is easier than ever - not only exposure to criticism but also attacks and lies. This is really new. I would go on to assume that many people can not handle the notion that something they love can get negative criticism in such quantity that they might get defensive about this.

From my perspective everything right now, #GamerGate (*sigh* god is this a stupid name. Sorry, I don't particulary care about #GG. It went by me when it started and afterwards I had no particular interesting to either read up or pick a side. I just find that name really stupid, be it DoritoGate or WhateverGate), those discussions (or should I call them fights?) about representation etc is just growing pains and evolution. People learn how to deal with the constant stream of criticism (since it is always the loudest thing there is), gaming journalism grows up to become something that deserves the term "journalism" and gaming on its own developes into a medium where both sides of this whole shebang can enjoy the medium, where I get my fair share of including games without cutting into the "summer blockbusters" of gaming.

Well... I went on here. *sips coffee at 4pm*

The difference is that whilst you might be able to point at an example or two of gamers being sexist, you can also point to countless examples of them not being sexist, and calling out others when they are. Feminists (from your example) still propagate a model of the wage-gap-myth almost uniformly(from what I can tell) that was logically debunked by Sowell a long-ass time ago. The levels of shared belief between these two groups? It's no contest.



Even when it's unfounded and irrational. Where are all the feminists decrying a model that's based on aggregates, goes out of it's way to include as few variables as possible and refrain from making any apples to apples comparisons? I know of Christina Hoff Sommers, and that's it. I did a google search and came up with her as the first hit, and then a bunch of articles defending the mythos. This would be an instance where you don't need to cherry-pick to make a valid criticism. Is this still unfair?

How about the 1 in 4 college rape myth that's also based on ridiculous research methodology? Or the idea that 30% of emergency room visits by women are due to domestic violence?

There's a lack of quality... It's annoying.

https://twitter.com/cl_kitchens/status/512592513748590592

Realise it's somewhat tangential, but it's funny. Displays the disconnect between old-school and new-school nicely.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm pretty sure Zach is a he. Also if you want there to be no more games featuring say scantily clad women that is taking away things form "the other side" if some people enjoyed those things.

I'm curious to know if you can find a single quote from a single public figure saying "There should be no more games featuring scantily clad women". Even a single quote, please. Find it, and I will stand with you side by side in telling that person what they are asking for is excessive.

Snip

I might be alone in this, but can we relegate accounts from Hoff Sommers, breitbart.com or readingthescore.com to the Politics and Religion board? That stuff has been slipping into this discussion more and more, and it's only going to go bad places. Same goes for any other polarizing political platform "dismantling" or "debunking" their opposite number.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

snip

snip

"Off-topic" is it? That would seem like a failure in the OP, to me. Since they hint at the nature of the criticism initially and then ignore it for the rest of the post. Which makes me think that they think Ebert and Sarkeesian are somehow peers. If you want to separate the political you're hamstringing the topic, in my view. I guess I'm basically done with it then, enjoy.

Wait, this is about "fear", isn't it? "Fear" of criticism coming from a movement that seemingly can't be reasoned with, ignores some facts... Cherry picks others, has a lousy record of abandoning bad or outdated data and is somehow gaining traction within a consumer hobby with a sizable contingent of people who don't share it's views or vision... Because the relevant media has been aping it's agenda.

You know what... That is scary. It seems oddly appropriate now.

 

[Lightknight]

Hopefully people can understand why those of us would be more favorable of the individuals advocating for making our experience better over the individuals telling us it's bad to enjoy saving princesses and friends?

Is that seriously where you think the roots of that particular controversy lay?

That her sole point was "Less rescuing princesses, it makes me sad", and the rebuttal was "Nooo, we like saving princesses, please stop, you make US sad?". And then the journalists felt the need to wade into the fray with articles like "Princesses Evil, and the People Who Save Them Repugnant", and BOOM, controversy?

It must be, because her claim that it's objectification is a blatant misuse of the definition of a grammatical object as if it were objectification is clearly false.

So if it's not objectification like she claims it is, then it must just be that she doesn't like it because she hasn't actually given a legitimate reason for why it's bad otherwise.

Objectification isn't "acting upon" someone. "You talking to me" isn't you objectifying me even though that makes me the object acted upon.

Go ahead, watch her first damsel video. She repeats this regularly. That damsels are being made objects because they are being acted upon and are therefore objectified. Now, you can make the argument that the person who kidnaps the damsel is objectifying her by not treating her with respect for her dignity as a person. But then your attempts at the protagonist to rescue the damsel is to fight against objectification itself. This would make the contrast between Anita's erroneous claims and reality a definitively ironic contrast.

Perhaps she dislikes that it portrays women as weaker than men and more vulnerable to assault. However, as a sexually dimorphic species this is a scientifically proven fact that one gender suffers a power disparity in strength over the other. But she says that this is a socially constructed myth.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

"Off-topic" is it? That would seem like a failure in the OP, to me. Since they hint at the nature of the criticism initially and then ignore it for the rest of the post. Which makes me think that they think Ebert and Sarkeesian are somehow peers. If you want to separate the political you're hamstringing the topic, in my view. I guess I'm basically done with it then, enjoy.

Wait, this is about "fear", isn't it? "Fear" of criticism coming from a movement that seemingly can't be reasoned with, ignores some facts... Cherry picks others, has a lousy record of abandoning bad or outdated data and is somehow gaining traction within a consumer hobby with a sizable contingent of people who don't share it's views or vision... Because the relevant media has been aping it's agenda.

You know what... That is scary. It seems oddly appropriate now.

Dude, if you want your right-wing think tank links considered and commented on, just move them to the OTHER FORUM ON THIS WEBSITE set aside for that. It's specifically put there to keep it out of gaming discussion, because it tends to get heated. I'm sorry if you think that shuffling ONE FORUM OVER is hamstringing the topic. It's the site rules. If I were to comment on the quality of and content of the links you've provided and individuals you've name checked, I'd get a big old basket of warnings, and told to take my stupid ass to Politics and Religion.

It must be, because her claim that it's objectification is a blatant misuse of the definition of a grammatical object as if it were objectification is clearly false.

So if it's not objectification like she claims it is, then it must just be that she doesn't like it because she hasn't actually given a legitimate reason for why it's bad otherwise.

Objectification isn't "acting upon" someone. "You talking to me" isn't you objectifying me even though that makes me the object acted upon.

Go ahead, watch her first damsel video. She repeats this regularly. That damsels are being made objects because they are being acted upon and are therefore objectified. Now, you can make the argument that the person who kidnaps the damsel is objectifying her by not treating her with respect for her dignity as a person. But then your attempts at the protagonist to rescue the damsel is to fight against objectification itself. This would make the contrast between Anita's erroneous claims and reality a definitively ironic contrast.

Perhaps she dislikes that it portrays women as weaker than men and more vulnerable to assault. However, as a sexually dimorphic species this is a scientifically proven fact that one gender suffers a power disparity in strength over the other. But she says that this is a socially constructed myth.

I'm sorry Lightknight, but what about the things you just said change the fact your original statement was a straw man? Tell me how what you just wrote makes this...

Someone like Anita Sarkeesian looks at games and decides that we shouldn't like saving damsels from tyrants because it makes her feel sad inside and she wants us to feel how she feels.

...accurate. Or, don't, because you're clearly not stupid, and trying to defend that statement WOULD be stupid. So save us both the time.

If you want to debate her use of the word objectification, go ahead. Debate it. I'm not a fan of her work and she makes reaches all the time. If sloppy argumentation was a crime 99.9% of this forum would be in prison, including me, because I just made that statistic up on the spot.

 

[Lightknight]

Someone like Anita Sarkeesian looks at games and decides that we shouldn't like saving damsels from tyrants because it makes her feel sad inside and she wants us to feel how she feels.

*sigh* And this is why I stopped caring and asking about more informations on the generalisations: People don't understand what they are reading.

Please, for the love of god: Show me where she said something even close to this.

It's form and function.

She stated that it's objectification and proceeded to site definitions that she looked up and would have known don't correlate. It isn't. She stated that women aren't physically weaker than men. They are weaker than men.

She relies on outright lies to try and discourage the use of the tropes that many gamers love. Myself included. I enjoy saving characters from evil characters that have captured them. I am not wrong for enjoying it and do not appreciate being told otherwise by her for made up reasons.

Please, feel free to directly respond to my criticisms rather than vaguely responding. I do not think she is dumb or that she has accidentally ignored facts. I think she used those two complaints because she didn't have other reasons. She has also said that damseled males if fine, which brings up a whole cacophony of sexist implications on her part and side steps all of the arguments she made against damselling females.

Hopefully people can understand why those of us would be more favorable of the individuals advocating for making our experience better over the individuals telling us it's bad to enjoy saving princesses and friends? Hopefully TheKasp can see why the original poster would be upset about the latter example.

Oh, I see why the original poster was upset. Because he projects the criticism of the media as criticism of himself. He assumes that the criticism of "game uses sexist trope" somehow means that he is sexist and should feel bad about is.

Edit: I will adress your big post at me in due time. I'm eating lunch right now and don't feel like writing out big posts.

I can't speak for the original poster at all. But the post seemed to indicate that he felt like journalists are telling him not to do or enjoy things that he otherwise enjoys. I don't think he's wrong. It does happen and he isn't projecting.

I just don't personally care. Journalists can tell me to do a lot of things. Still gonna do them if they are ethically acceptable and fun for me to do. The point he was making is that they shouldn't be trying to control us. It isn't their place. They aren't our mommies and their agenda isn't necessarily our agenda.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

"Off-topic" is it? That would seem like a failure in the OP, to me. Since they hint at the nature of the criticism initially and then ignore it for the rest of the post. Which makes me think that they think Ebert and Sarkeesian are somehow peers. If you want to separate the political you're hamstringing the topic, in my view. I guess I'm basically done with it then, enjoy.

Wait, this is about "fear", isn't it? "Fear" of criticism coming from a movement that seemingly can't be reasoned with, ignores some facts... Cherry picks others, has a lousy record of abandoning bad or outdated data and is somehow gaining traction within a consumer hobby with a sizable contingent of people who don't share it's views or vision... Because the relevant media has been aping it's agenda.

You know what... That is scary. It seems oddly appropriate now.

Dude, if you want your right-wing think tank links considered and commented on, just move them to the OTHER FORUM ON THIS WEBSITE set aside for that. It's specifically put there to keep it out of gaming discussion, because it tends to get heated. I'm sorry if you think that shuffling ONE FORUM OVER is hamstringing the topic. It's the site rules. If I were to comment on the quality of and content of the links you've provided and individuals you've name checked, I'd get a big old basket of warnings, and told to take my stupid ass to Politics and Religion.

You know... You say you're "sorry", but I kinda don't think you mean it. Call me crazy...

I linked to Sowell talking factually about one topic and I name dropped CHS... Who is famous for trying to be factual in regards to feminism. Honestly, where do you have to be on the scale to see this as "right-wing"?

 

[Lightknight]

I'm sorry Lightknight, but what about the things you just said change the fact your original statement was a straw man? Tell me how what you just wrote makes this...

Someone like Anita Sarkeesian looks at games and decides that we shouldn't like saving damsels from tyrants because it makes her feel sad inside and she wants us to feel how she feels.

...accurate. Or, don't, because you're clearly not stupid, and trying to defend that statement WOULD be stupid. So save us both the time.

If you want to debate her use of the word objectification, go ahead. Debate it. I'm not a fan of her work and she makes reaches all the time. If sloppy argumentation was a crime 99.9% of this forum would be in prison, including me, because I just made that statistic up on the spot.

Wait... you think I was being literal when I said it's because it makes her sad? That I hold a direct and literal position that she dislikes it solely because it saddens her heart and makes her cry at night? Nope, I was employing sarcasm and jest.

I personally don't think she gives a flying monkey fart about games unless she became a serious fan of them during her studies. According to her, she's not a fan of games and doesn't like violence in games anyways. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734] So fighting a bad guy in a video game to save anyone wouldn't be her cup of tea regardless. Again, unless her tone has changed since she begun playing games for research in her videos assuming she personally played the games. She is either incompetent as a researcher and is actually upset over objectification/power disparities that she's objectively wrong about or she is a liar who is just saying what she thinks sounds good to make a point she didn't appropriately research before doing the videos.

Now, I think she does have an argument regarding objectification by sexualizing the female characters. I think it's prudish at best to make that a complaint but at least that's an honest and correct argument. But the damsel scenario I brought up doesn't relate to that and it's unethical of her to maintain that it should be stopped as something that is wrong.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I linked to Sowell talking factually about one topic and I name dropped CHS... Who is famous for trying to be factual in regards to feminism. Honestly, where do you have to be on the scale to see this as "right-wing"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

Occupation: Author, university professor, scholar at The American Enterprise Institute

By the by, I anyone can call themselves "the factual X". It doesn't make them "factual". I watched that Sommers video making the rounds. Rather light on facts, rather UP TO THE GILLS on well poisoning, hand waving, and posturing. It's a puff piece by a neoconservative think tank. It's fine if people enjoy it and want to embrace it, people embrace the things that reinforce their confirmation biases all the time. The last time it was posted, it was moved to religion and politics...where it belongs.

http://www.readingthescore.com/

Frank Camp is a Conservative actor, and graduate of the University of Arizona. He became interested in politics during the 2004 Presidential election. After carefully watching the political process during the election, he was hooked. He began writing in August of 2012, and within two months, was employed by Last Resistance as a political blogger. He is now serving as Editor of Reading The Score, where he hopes to expand the scope and brand of RTS, as well as help spread the ideals of Conservatism to a new generation.

AR Ward is a Breitbart.com contributor and founder of Reading The Score. He is devoted to building the Conservative new media movement by sharing as many voices as possible and taking on the left everywhere.

Good enough?

To the politics board with it, please.

 

[Lightknight]

"Off-topic" is it? That would seem like a failure in the OP, to me. Since they hint at the nature of the criticism initially and then ignore it for the rest of the post. Which makes me think that they think Ebert and Sarkeesian are somehow peers. If you want to separate the political you're hamstringing the topic, in my view. I guess I'm basically done with it then, enjoy.

Wait, this is about "fear", isn't it? "Fear" of criticism coming from a movement that seemingly can't be reasoned with, ignores some facts... Cherry picks others, has a lousy record of abandoning bad or outdated data and is somehow gaining traction within a consumer hobby with a sizable contingent of people who don't share it's views or vision... Because the relevant media has been aping it's agenda.

You know what... That is scary. It seems oddly appropriate now.

Dude, if you want your right-wing think tank links considered and commented on, just move them to the OTHER FORUM ON THIS WEBSITE set aside for that. It's specifically put there to keep it out of gaming discussion, because it tends to get heated. I'm sorry if you think that shuffling ONE FORUM OVER is hamstringing the topic. It's the site rules. If I were to comment on the quality of and content of the links you've provided and individuals you've name checked, I'd get a big old basket of warnings, and told to take my stupid ass to Politics and Religion.

Wait, facts are right-wing now? Good to know. There I was, a registered democratic voting for people based on what I thought were facts but now maybe I should switch teams. Because, I know I believe in facts and if you're claiming facts are right-wing then I guess I have to turn in my dem card at the door. [/sarcasm]

*sigh* On a serious note, some things shouldn't be politically tied. Some things have facts that back them up or reject them and it's insulting when facts can't be discussed just because someone is wearing a red or blue tie. The vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle if we were to be honest with ourselves so can we just have an honest sit down and discuss facts where plausible? Or are you afraid of criticisms?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wait... you think I was being literal when I said it's because it makes her sad? That I hold a direct and literal position that she dislikes it solely because it saddens her heart and makes her cry at night? Nope, I was employing sarcasm and jest.

No, you were employing pejorative and hyperbole because it helps you discredit the other individual because it makes them look like a fucking moron. Rather the same route taken by a group of people lately when they called gamers man-children and neckbeards. Do you think they were being literal? That they held a literal and direct position that they all had beards on their necks, or were children? No, they were employing "sarcasm and jest", and look at how very fucking helpful it was.

Now, I think she does have an argument regarding objectification by sexualizing the female characters. I think it's prudish at best to make that a complaint but at least that's an honest and correct argument. But the damsel scenario I brought up doesn't relate to that and it's unethical of her to maintain that it should be stopped as something that is wrong.

Why is it prudish? Why characterize the complaint negatively? If you think there's merit to it, which you imply when you say "she does have an argument", why not let it stand on its merit? Is this not meant to be a rational discussion? "Prudish" is a value judgment. It's an emotional judgment. It's not a rational refutation.

The problem I have with Anita Sarkeesian, insomuch as I have a problem, is that she appears to start with a conclusion and then work backwards to color it in, and throws a pretty wide net that catches a lot of the wrong fish. I don't think its particularly compelling that she's a lazy critic, though, the world is full of them. This one in particular seems to inspire a new 30 page thread on this website on a daily basis, full of bilious rage and obsessive fixation. Why would that be? Is this site that consumed by lazy criticism? It's not like it didn't exist before that. It's not like HER CRITICS aren't being lazy themselves. Why is this one person the anti-christ? Funny that.

On a serious note, some things shouldn't be politically tied. Some things have facts that back them up or reject them and it's insulting when facts can't be discussed just because someone is wearing a red or blue tie. The vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle if we were to be honest with ourselves so can we just have an honest sit down and discuss facts where plausible? Or are you afraid of criticisms?

If you'll go to the Religion and Politics forum, you'll find a thread on the "Factual" Feminist there (where it was moved by site moderators, because that is where it belonged). I gave my impression of her "facts" in that thread. I'm too lazy to go dig them up, and I'm sure as hell not watching that fucking thing again to repeat them.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

snip

Ha!

Ok... So a link to a branch on her twitter where she isn't even a commentator is right-wing by association. If you looked at the link you'd know it revolves around a jezebel writers comment. So it's left-wing now, right?

Did I link to Breitbart? Not that it matters entirely... If they make sense on a topic then they make sense on that topic, regardless of affiliation... That's the nature of dealing with facts. The negative connotations you might have for them would be meaningless. But... Did I actually link to Breitbart? Not saying I didn't, I just don't remember doing it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Ok... So a link to a branch on her twitter where she isn't even a commentator is right-wing by association. If you looked at the link you'd know it revolves around a jezebel writers comment. So it's left-wing now, right?

A link to a branch on her twitter? I'm not sure what that's meant to mean, guy. Go to YouTube. The Factual Feminist is BY The American Enterprise Institute. It's their show. If that isn't a strong enough correlation for you, nothing will ever be.

Did I link to Breitbart? Not that it matters entirely... If they make sense on a topic then they make sense on that topic, regardless of affiliation... That's the nature of dealing with facts. The negative connotations you might have for them would be meaningless. But... Did I actually link to Breitbart? Not saying I didn't, I just don't remember doing it.

No, you linked to reading the score, which is what I provided a quote from. That's the "About" page from reading the score. One of them just also happens to work at Breitbart.

Well, that's the thing, guy. They are presenting "facts" as they see them. Through a very particular world view. Which is why it belongs in Politics and Religion.

 

[Lightknight]

Well, good for you. And you could still have those stories, just with less reliance on a 'character' that lacks agenda and is nothing more than the "damsel in distress". I've yet to see any implications that one is wrong with enjoying games featuring those.

I think you meant "agency" instead of agenda. Or maybe you meant agenda, I don't know, but I'd say every damsel has an agenda that's at least to no longer be kidnapped.

Here's why I don't want a damsel with agency. Agency implies that I'm not needed, that she's not really in danger. In order for a damsel to be a damsel they need to be unable to act to save themselves or it ceases to be the case.

So no, I can't still have games with that in it and have games where the damsels don't need to be saved. They are mutually exclusive. I want the people I save to need me to save them. Otherwise what's the point?

If you're just saying that they should be better written, then maybe, maybe not. Damsels are sometimes made better by being left vague because the gamer is then able to use the ol' imagination noggin and project people they care about onto their person-hood. There is nothing unethical about leaving them undefined and it isn't necessarily better to define them.

You can have both. Games like the Last of Us have a clearly defined person you're responsible for protecting that you care about and makes the game better. That's cool but sometimes it turns out poorly like in Resident Evil 4 where I would have pushed Ashley off a cliff myself if I could have gotten rid of her. Then you can have games like Shadow of the Colossus where the damsel is literally dead and completely undefined but have the task of saving her be meaningful. Because, honestly, how universal is saving people you care about or returning loves ones that were lost? You don't have to define the person to make it meaningful? Why do you necessarily have to explain why a life is worth saving? I think wanting to be the hero is good enough. I get that Anita is upset that a damsel is often interchangeable with a sack of gold or a beloved dog, but that's not really an argument against it being there.

If it just boils down to wanting better writing for characters, then sure. But not every woman we run across in games has to be some kind of badass mercenary who was just waiting for the right time to break out when you came along. Sometimes they can just be a woman and that's that. A typical woman who doesn't know hand to hand and isn't stronger than most men. You know, the average woman rather than the type of person I wouldn't otherwise be attracted to or that wouldn't need my help.

"This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it?s more problematic or pernicious aspects."

This is from the very first Damsel in Distress video. This should actually stop any possible interpretations people try to somehow bar into those videos that she is either shaming the devs or consumers.

Huh? No. It's just a disclaimer saying that it's possible to enjoy games while being critical of certain elements of the games. It's basically her just saying that she's a fan of gaming even though she dislikes these elements. So in criticizing the damsel trope as objectification she is shaming developers for using it and consumers for enjoying it.

Because objectification is bad, I'm sure we agree. Her pretending like this is objectification is claiming that we, as developers or gamers, are doing or enjoying something that is bad.

The thing is: I don't see it. At all. I read all those articles that spawn controversies and I've yet to see one that states that the consumer is responsible or should change.

Could you link me articles that do that. I'm genuine here.

Oh, my apologies. I see how this was misconstrued. I started discussing this with you on a post you made to another poster. White Taco, I think. By referring to them as the OP I'm sure I confused the heck out of you and that's my fault for the ambiguous pronoun. Sorry for that. This was the poster that said they don't like being told by journalists not to do X or Y if those are things people typically like.