Oh, in this particular incident with the event, people do expect changes to happen. Is that what you have a problem with? Is, "people who are offended here" shouldn't expect to be catered to, your point?

I'm glad that you mentioned whoever making gay slurs should have the right to free speech, because whoever posting on twitter condemning what went down at the event also has that right to free speech.

Sometimes, people just want to vent, without actually hoping to change their situation. e.g. "I was offended by my late aunt's insults!" nothing can be changed. But here, people do want to change the gaming culture, they do expect to see future events be more respectful. Is that what you have a problem with? I don't…

I think I'd nominate you as the poster-child for demanding more female protagonists in videogames. :) Too many mandatory male protagonists would make girls feel weird playing as them.

Racism isn't as much a binary as it's a continuum, whether someone is racist depends on your reference point. I suppose Ashley wasn't particularly racist if you compare her to the GOP, but to a progressive observer (which I imagine Kate Cox to be), Ashley was pretty racist at the beginning. It depends on how much of…

oh.. that one in the middle is Shepard? I thought she's a random Normandy crew.

Are you saying it's dismissive to those people because they are *not* members of the "bro culture"? Or is it dismissive because they are members of the "bro culture" but they also appreciate cutesy games?

How would I take it when someone feels "ashamed" of having worked on something I enjoy? "They're entitled to their opinion", that would be my first reaction. It's not an attack on me, and I have no reason to feel defensive. Secondly, I'd like to know why they're not happy about working on that thing. If there's…

He's talking about a certain "dudebro" culture within the organization, and a certain "dudebro" attitude some of the people have. He's worked in that organization and met those people himself.

He "walks away" because he thinks that kind of culture is bad, and he couldn't tolerate it. What is the problem? Must everyone stand and listen to everyone else talk about the stuff they don't like?

When you like A more than B, of course you'd think A is in some ways superior, that's the reason why you prefer A over B. How is that an "attack"?

Why is having a different taste considered getting 'worked up'? The author just doesn't enjoy Call of Duty, and expresses his displeasure for such games, it's not an attack on those who do like that game.

I'm worried about that as well. I don't know what happened to another regular writer on here, Kate Cox? Not sure what else we can really do to support Patricia other than to increase the number of women writers on this site so as to increase the visibility of women, and hope that will help to 'normalise' their…

That's so true. I remember someone once said, when a person stands on a soapbox and expresses their opinion, and then many, many others get angry and start to shout them down, each and every time this person expresses their opinion— there's a problem with 'freedom of speech', and it's not the one you think.

Eh, I'm sure Anita would've agreed with you on that one. ;)

Well, it's true that you never asked for help. I just thought I could be of use if you're interested in fixing up your logical arguments. Sorry to presume...

So you can't construct a fallacy from what she actually said? She never said "For the damsel to be a subject, the damsel needs to be a protagonist". It's the same strawman over and over. I can't help you if you can't be more precise in your logic.

Which part of the word 'context' don't you understand? She's talking about the characters inside the damsel in distress, when she mentions who can be considered as the object vs. subject in that specific context. Isn't this obvious?

The quotes provide a specific context in which she said those things, but at line#3, you've removed that context. It suffers from the same problems these non-sequiturs suffer:

No, I don't "see the issue". I can sort of accept the first 2 premises if I don't use both of my eyes to look, but everything after that is a non sequitur. Could you revise the third line and try again? Cannot claim equivalence there.