THM said:
Probably. Thing is, sometimes it seems a bit random as to what's going to incite the next 'moral' panic.
Does
any of that really matter, though? Particularly given the shit publishers keep pulling, and given the the pre-order culture we're having to deal with?
Is gaming so weak - so pitiful and pathetic - that it, unlike any other artform, is broken by moral panics and nonsense?
True; but when the 'storm' is in the middle of raging, that kind of calm intelligence isn't there anymore.
It's getting a little philosophical... but maybe people should ignore what the storm's doing or not doing, and look to their own actions/thoughts instead. I think most people would agree
people reacting to people reacting is blighting us all.
It's not the having of opinions that's the problem; it's the ramming said opinion down everyone's throat, preferably until the nasty thing they don't like gets changed, which is the problem. As opposed to, say, those same folks going out and creating their own game/game series which treats the subject of gender the way they think it should be treated. Or I am just dreaming out loud.
When, precisely, does an expression of opinion become "ramming" it down someone's throat, though? I feel that's a very nebulous thing, and people
perceive that others are imposing their tastes on them simply because they are holding an opposed viewpoint, or, typically, one they can't understand or find sympathy in.
Also, surely it's a matter of perspective... If the principle of having an opinion or attitude rammed down one's throat is objectionable (a worldview or perspective that excludes those that don't match it), then what on earth does the typically heteronormative masculine consensus represent? What is that, if not a perceived or actual imposition on anyone who doesn't really fit that box?