Think of the words used, what they imply, who they are used by. It's neither original nor innocent. Have you ever heard hysterical "SWJ conspiracies" and SWJ labels in other contexts ? Do you think that people going crazy about 'hatred' (and i am sorry, but only the hatred fans are going crazy about hatred here : as mentionned by both sides of the argument to illustrate opposite things, if gog was selling this game here the "forum outrage" would not be comparable at all) have just one shitty game in mind, and aren't just rolling on the momentum of a general feeling of "oppression by the SJW" ? Who are constantly playing the huge victims of "political correctness" ? Where does the expression "political correctness" actually stems from and why ?

This whole psychodrama is broader than this shooter, and this shooter gets overblown as a pathetic little symbol of something else (which it exclusively capitalizes on, making it an automated wallet-vacuum-sucker for idiots, because that's what its business plan amounts to). It is fueled by the frustration of all those who already feel super persecuted by sexism-being-a-thing and other consequence of our society's increasing self-awareness on societal issues. The reflex of screaming "SJW" and barking at "censorship" was already present, and well trained by other pseudo-martyrdoms in different contexts. The whole thought structure, the lexicon, the attitudes, thr rhetorics, it's directly imported to this discussion - or rather the opposite, the question of gog-selling-hatred is directly imported into that big vague protest against the increasing ridicule attached to reactionary clichés, a vague protest with its already-honed code and vocabulary.

The only real offensive thing about 'hatred' is its bet-on-cretins business plan. The hatred-centered question is purely a commercial question : the "right" to sell in every shop (!?) any shit cheaply capitalizing on any trend (here, the pre-existing anti-"SWJ" neurosis) because oh noes one shop not selling my product is an intolerable infrigement on free market. The whole "political" argument around it ("it is censorship on the freedom of expressions on art and ideas and we would totally call amnesty international if they weren't such SJWs") is just an irrelevant, self-serving, hijacking of more important values, on the same mode as the rhetorics of reactionary creeps when they consider they don't get enough media visibility ("stop being intolerant to intolerance").

You used to mock libertarianism, and its rhetorics of pseudo-freedom dismissing everything else. But it is exactly what is at stake here. Both through the pseudo-"freedom of expression" (an old fallacy on so many level : freedom of expression neither is an absolute value nor is endangered in this specific context), and through the obligation to sell whatever product everywhere (there is no such a thing, and there shouldn't be, despite of the freemarket=democray=freemarket rhetorics). "OH NOES SJW DICTATORSHIP" is just the packaging here, but heck, it's flashy, and super flattering (in a very you-are-the-social-justice-warrior way, actually), and it sells. Super well. On some people. Who are not even that numerous after all, desite of the noise they make.

The double standard is, as often pointed out, in why the rejection of a 'hatred' generates a reaction that much more violent than the rejection of a vastly superior 'braid'. Check what notions get mobilised in the defense of 'hatred', and this double standard is explained by the gamergate-ish controversies that have been running and growing in parallel. And these gamergate-ish controversies are deeply rooted in the most archaic reactionary rearguard. The parallels in rhetorics are not fortuitous. It is just a ridiculous mutual piggybacking - with a coin slot on one side.

So yes, the borrowing of arguments and terminologies is quite telling of what is actually at stake, here. Beyond the idiotic a-game-is-not-sold-by-gog anecdote, which, by itself, would have generated only a couple of lines.