Skykid wrote:But one massive, enormous, earth-shattering non-sequitor of a campaign that conversely creates inequality of the sexes and genuinely ruins the image of actual feminists, is not required...I don't consider the ridiculous totalitarian demands of third wave feminism to be at all realistic or even well measured
I don't follow this stuff as closely as you do, I'm sure, but yes, I do still occasionally happen upon presumptuous, megaphone'd demands that everyone must put forth an immediate, constant effort to elevate some super-specific societal niche that's "having its moment", and like most people am not inclined to respond with much more than a chuckle and a shake of the head; exactly which "movements" fall under this category is different for each individual observer, but I certainly won't deny that the self-important, howling outliers do exist.
That said, allow me to direct your attention to
another comic by the same bunch I linked earlier; at risk of sounding hyperbolic (or overly topical) myself, I tend to wonder if "taking decisive action, unsavory sexist elements be damned" against the social elements one deems "unworthy" of serious consideration is about as "effective" as the calls to "bomb country xyz back to the stone age, collateral damage be damned" when a handful of terrorists are found to be from there. To put it another way, do you think Anita would have ever come within
spitting distance of the U.N. if the response to her videos hadn't gone much beyond "eh, I don't really agree because...", any more than ISIS and the like would keep gaining members if the entire Western hemisphere didn't go totally ape and start blowing villages off the face of the earth anytime a lunatic from a certain part of the world (as opposed to the home-grown crazies shooting up malls, they don't count) decides to provoke a reaction?
Again, I wouldn't dream of
directly comparing "SJW's" and terrorists, but I'm tempted to assert that insisting that either of these tiny, largely-spurned minorities is
an existential threat!, and furthermore acting as if you believe what you say, grant both of them far more legitimacy than they deserve and only exacerbate both their longevity and their influence. If you truly want to see them shrivel, take a deep breath and, via a measured, confident degree of response (as opposed to the panicked, flailing, spittle-laced, and frankly emasculating displays that have become the norm), treat them like the errant blips on the radar that they are.
This was the 1st piece of news I encountered. If it's true, it would seem that it at least had a part in the decision making.
It's impossible to know whether or not Tecmo was making a genuine statement there, but offhand I'm inclined to doubt it because 1) In gaming, by most any reasonable measure you'd care to apply, the overall trend of late, despite the ongoing "SJW" assault on everything, has been the release and localization of
more "politically incorrect" content than we could have hoped for even a few years ago, not less (the aforementioned Senran Kagura standing as one of the more notorious examples), and 2) Again, I can't read Tecmo's minds, but when your fans are cheesed off at a decision you've made it's a lot easier for PR to insist "Completely nothing-to-do-with-us outside forces are keeping this game out of your hands, please direct your complaints elsewhere" as opposed to "Not enough of you have been buying this, where were all of you a few years ago?". Just a guess on my part, but as I said earlier I really doubt that Tecmo, of all outfits, pays all that much attention to Who Not To Offend.
