I've given you actual examples from the article illustrating the inclusion of "us" as gamers and sentiments about "our" problems. If you still want to believe he's somehow not pontificating on gamers themselves; that's your prerogative. However, just to go over once more....
I honestly don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or not. The sexist asshole gamers are giving gamers as a whole a bad name. Instead of creating sub-categories of gamers based on level of assholeness, the author is talking about gamers with a specific focus on those of us that are sexist assholes. He makes it clear SEVERAL times that not all gamers are like this, but you're choosing to be offended because the title was shittily worded (a
Crackedstaple). Myself and many other gamers can read that article and never once get the impression that we are being unfairly judged or categorized. Again, I think you need a pre-existing chip on your shoulder to be angry at a guy for calling out sexist asshole behavior as being unacceptable and harmful. But whatever, you ignored what I had to say about this already so it's pointless to go around in circles.
How can your dissonance be so bad? So, claiming that violent games cause violence=witch hunt. Claiming that sexist games cause sexism=They were women! Yeah, no. As I showed, men get targeted to. You WANT to believe the reason is different because the METHOD of the trolls attack is different. Yes, the trolls against women use sexism and sexual violence rather than generic violence and denigrating comments. No, Tan, that does not mean the core reason for their attacks ARE different; that's just an assumption on your part.
You're just being silly now. Seriously. I've said repeatedly that there is valid criticism of Sarkeesian. I have linked valid criticism of Sarkeesian. I have expressed my own valid criticism of Sarkeesian. You know what all of this valid criticism had in common? Nobody expressing this criticism said they wanted to drink blood out of her ripped open cunt. If you need to threaten to rape and kill someone to criticize them; if you need to refer to someone as a "cunt" or "whore" to criticize them; if you need to use explicitly misogynist and hateful language to criticize someone, then guess what? YOU ARE A SEXIST ASSHOLE.
You WANT to believe these sexist assholes have a good point but are just expressing it the wrong way. Unfortunately, you're completely and utterly delusional and it pains me that you can't see the forest for the trees. There are many good fights worth fighting. Do you know why this one is so popular? BECAUSE IT ALLOWS SEXIST ASSHOLES TO FULFILL THEIR DESIRE TO HATE ON WOMEN. I honestly don't understand how you can't see that. There are so many injustices in this world, so much corruption, so much cheating and lying and abusing and outright killing, but apparently the one issue that all these guys consider worth fighting for is a woman who thought it might be worthwhile to criticize the portrayal of women in video games. That's the greatest irony of all. People complaining that Sarkeesian can't be criticized when her one contribution to gaming has been constructive criticism, and that's what all these guys HATE. Yes, Lith, the "core reason" for why Sarkeesian and Quinn were targeted IS different from why Thompson was targeted. You WANT to believe it's not, but that's just an assumption on your part. Unfortunately all the readily available evidence points otherwise.
So you're anti-bias? That's fantastic! Bias exists on a gargantuan scale within a tremendous spectrum of ideas expressed in the world. If the one sliver you choose to focus on happens to be the same one that the lowest scum of the Earth have chosen to hijack for their sick and twisted reasons, I don't know what to tell you. I would think if there was actual concern there, one would try to shut these assholes up since they're doing so much obvious harm to the actual "legitimate criticism warriors" (LCWs) trying to draw attention to actual flaws within gaming journalism. If there was no actual concern there, I imagine the only rational decision would be to choose another of the many examples of bias in journalism.
You don't have to "feel bad" about demanding more from mainstream media. But that doesn't mean you have to jump to conspiracy-theory level shit just because a bunch of sexist assholes are criticizing something that is actually worthy of some criticism (unbeknownst to them). You think Sarkeesian is worth criticizing? Fucking criticize her! If you can do it without references to her genitals and it's worth reading, people will read it! We have access to unlimited information sharing and you're complaining because the one slice of media that is guaranteed to not cover all worthwhile topics reasonably
might possiblynot be covering one particular worthwhile topic because the greatest sexist assholes the world has ever seen have single-handedly demolished any reasonable conversation that could possibly happen about the topic, well... it seems a little iffy.