[vladharbuz]

> If it is so important for those people who love to complain about such stuff. Though I suspect most of the people complaining about her proportions didn't even play the games themselves.

You can make your point without claiming that people who have a different view just “love to complain”. It might be worth asking yourself why they're complaining instead of dismissing their views — you wouldn't want someone else to dismiss your view like that.

[cubefox]

But I think it's true in that case. At least Goulet's arguments mentioned in the article are very bad, as I wrote elsewhere in this thread.

[vladharbuz]

Even if the arguments are bad, this does not mean the person making them just loves to complain. Have you never made a bad argument?

[cubefox]

But it does seem like motivated reasoning. I never hear men complain about the unrealistic depiction of men in women shows. Neither with good nor with bad arguments.

To be fair, most women didn't complain about Lara Croft or Princess Peach either. It was just some (influential!) minority of feminists who complained about this, got amplified by sympathetic journalists (who mostly lean pretty far left), and the rest is history.

[vladharbuz]

> I never hear men complain about the unrealistic depiction of men in women shows.

Err, really? I'm a man and I complain about this all the time, and so do some of my friends. In any case, even if you've never heard people talk about this, I'm sure there are objections to the depictions of men that _you_ could imagine. If you think these objections are underrepresented, talking to those around you about them would be a positive influence.

> It was just some (influential!) minority of feminists who complained about this, got amplified by sympathetic journalists (who mostly lean pretty far left), and the rest is history.

Already in this sentence you're discounting the fact that these complaints resonate with people. I'm not sure in which way you think these feminists are “influential”, but let's say journalists widely covered certain arguments. Do you mean this media coverage somehow brainwashed people? Surely not, because you would be denying the agency of readers. Clearly there is something in these arguments that legitimately appeals to people. Isn't it interesting and important to find out what parts of the arguments resonated with someone and why, even if you think the end result is wrong?

For example, I disagree with those who voted for Brexit to happen. But if I just dismissed them as brainwashed idiots, that would be very foolish of me. These people voted this way for a reason, and I need to understand which part of Brexit resonated with them, even if I think they came to the wrong conclusion, otherwise I can never understand them and I can never advocate for an alternative that will meet their needs as well.

> (who mostly lean pretty far left)

Again, why does this matter? There is no need to resort to football team factionalism, to make things about politics instead of policies. Do you think the arguments are good? Great, then these people have a point. Do you think these arguments are bad? Okay, that's fair, make your opinion heard so that you can add your voice. Tell us in more detail about why those policies are bad, not about why _the people making those points_ are bad. It would be rash of me to psychoanalyse why are you are making certain arguments without even knowing you, let alone to say that you are trying to influence people as part of some conspiracy. (Sorry if I'm portraying your view in an overdramatic way but it did sound like you were saying something like this a little bit.)

> motivated reasoning

Motivated by what? Do you really think a love of complaining is a more likely motivator than a desire to right a perceived injustice?