So, does existence of such uncivil speech (let's call it that as a strategy of de-escalation) is an excuse to turn down any constructive criticism too?

Also Anita tends to harass people that did her no harm, like Boogie at Vidcon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-azOuTN3Ps

I'll give that a very heartfelt +1

deleted

I don't know where to go with this line of discussion, honestly.
"Calling something that's not harassment harassment is bad!"
Ok. Yes. So? I don't think Anita (as an example) was complaining and calling people who said "I don't think your analysis is very nuanced, because you missed out X, Y and Z" as harassment. She was calling the thousands of (very often sexually charged and gendered) insults, death threats and rape threats, which made up the vast majority of it as harassment, and that too has overtaken and flooded out the legitimate (or at least non-inflammatory) criticisms to too large an extent.

Who said this? Where? I'm genuinely curious. Are you talking about serious game criticism from within the culture itself (I know people like to exclude Anita as "She's not a real gamer, but that's just BS), or some crackpot lawyer or religious extremist? Someone said a game contributed to increase violence towards women and minorities?
See, if not, this again comes back to the problem of exaggeration- people keep making such claims "These people say that games cause violence!" so that their audience actually believes that that is what this "other side" is claiming.

"They say games cause sexism!" "They say games cause violence!" etc...I don't think I've ever heard "them" say those things. It's important to be accurate.

I also don't understand this complaint. If one person makes a criticism about a game, and another reads it and finds they agree with it and share it, and then someone else shares that, and shares and shares and shares, somehow that is bad?

I also don't understand this, not the least because I think you phrased it badly. You're saying calling people who say they enjoy those features immature?
I'm not sure how that situation would come up, honestly, it seems totally hypothetical. I mean, one person says "This game totally lacks diversity/features a boring save the princess plotline!", and then another person would say "But that's good! I enjoy games that lack diversity/feature boring save the princess plotlines!", and then the first person would call the second immature?

You answered the question yourself. Given the incredibly large number of games that already feature a "Save the princess" plotline, someone doing it again today just stinks of uninnovative thinking. Coupled on top of that, usage of THAT SPECIFIC trope among the thousands of games that use the same trope shows a trend (totally unconscious and unintentional, usually) of specific attitudes towards women (as things or objects of goals instead of people, and that's been even demonstrated in this very thread). Of course there are games that buck the trend or try doing something different, but those are kinda obvious- at one point in the Zelda series you had Sheikh appear, for example.

Yeah, whatever total shit you still have in gamergate's bag of cry wolf holding, dude. We could go into what VidCon is, but you probably know neither Hank nor John, nor have you read a single book of the latter, the whole event only interested you because of its infiltration by the alt-right in the first place. We could go into how Boogie himself excused Sarkeesian's behaviour, we could go into how Boogie blamed Sarkeesian for the death of Heather Heyer, that would be great, we could go into allegations of his domestic abuse, we could go into why Sarkeesian may not be the coolest person when identitarian neo-nazis fill the first row of her panel, but why the fuck should anyone even bother? As soon as it's getting too embarrassing for you, you just reach into that infinite bag of gamergate conspiracy crap again and demand to be proven wrong on yet another tangent that sends people on a wild goose chase for the truth while you just sit there reaching into that same old bag unearthing the same heaps of shit tomorrow, demanding to be proven wrong on dishonest smears that you've gotten your ass whupped with yesterday already.

With the level of harassment Sarkeesian received and still receives, and I've personally witnessed quite a lot of it, her level of restraint and ongoing civility is literally super human. I wish I had that incredible, laudable, admirable skill. I'm certainly done with civility. I'm calling a spade a spade, a heap of shit a heap of shit, and a fascist lie a fascist lie.

I provided you with evidence of the event and your just gonna ignore it? Cool bro. I see where your priorities are.

Also, where do you got proof that there where neo nazis siting at the panel? What's that? You don't have any? One might think you are just a raging screamer that defends his social views regardless if they are true or nor.

You think or you know it for sure? Because she WAS calling Carl Benjamin a harasser and I saw all his videos about Anita - all was civil criticism.

Again. How exactly you estimate the number and severity of insults and threats? By the words of Anita only or you have some statistics? I actually asked that question already two times and you still haven't answered it.

Anita in her "Tropes: Women vs Videogames" videos. Should I watch them again to point out exact time of her statements or you can do it yourself?

No. But when some other person who disagrees with criticism makes a comment about that disagreement this person immediately called alt-right ideologue, mysoginist, neo-Nazi and so forth. THIS is bad.

Yes. (I removed the phrase "It's good" because no one among reasonable gamers don't pretend to know what is good or bad for everyone)

Not sure anyone can even consume all those videos without having the brain liquified and dripping out of your ears, but yeah. People who send out "I wouldn't even rape you" tweets aren't usually considered "civil". And even if they were, identitarian neo-nazis are still identitarian neo-nazis, even if they're "nice". I mean, shit on a stick, Richard Spencer, super nice guy, no? Hear him out, he's got right of free speech! Okay, don't ask him about the jews and the gays and the immigrants and the Social Jewish Warriors and the ...

I don't even know who Richard Spencer is, but if his ideas are so bad why not let him speak? The ideas will stand or fall on their own merit. If he's truly bigoted, that will be clear to everyone when you let him speak. As long as someone isn't breaking the law by inciting people to violence or something, there's no justifiable reason to restrict someone else, especially someone else with a different view than you, from expressing their opinion.

I do know who jordan peterson is, and seeing the mindless, semi violent protests on a university against him speaking, after hearing his perfectly rational, non-hate filled speech from other sources, is what has enlightened me up to this genuine problem. This is a legitimate risk to a free society. It prevents reasonable conversation and discussion of ideas, most of the people protesting probably didn't even know what he was there to talk about, they were just told 'he is bad' and they should hate him.

Let free speech be, and let individuals decide for themselves. At this point the cries of 'sexism', 'racism', 'nazis', etc have become overused and diluted of real meaning. The story of the boy who cried wolf is particularly apt here, if you call everyone who disagrees with you a nazi, it won't be long before everyone stops believing you.

The solution is the same for gaming, really; let games be, and let the market and individuals decide for themselves what they want to play. I suspect you'll find the games trying to push politics over good gameplay will be the ones that fail, no matter which side of politics are being pushed. In theory both sides can then be happy? No politics can only improve gaming.