[Karunamon]

Violence is a very real social problem. I'd even say that Thompson's heart was arguably in the right place.

Now, why are Thompson's arguments widely dismissed as invalid even though they have the same logical construction as the SJWs arguments, and they receive much more credibility?

Thompson's argument boiled down to its base is that violence in games perpetuates a culture that has real negative impacts on the real world.

The average SJW's argument, take Thompson's postulate, replace "violence" with any random "-ism", and it's literally the same argument with the same striking lack of anything other than emotion to back it up.

[AngrySkillzz]

I'd argue that the difference is that we tend to see violence, especially the extreme sort found in most games, as "obviously wrong." Performing the action in a game isn't likely to cause someone to change their behaviors about something that has been ingrained in them as obviously wrong. But sexism, racism, etc. and general exclusionary tendencies are much more subtle and less obvious; I'm not saying that games do necessarily influence people on these topics, but there is a definite qualitative difference between how people feel about violence and how people feel about sexism, etc., to the point that the arguments are not parallel. The evidence against Thompson's argument doesn't preclude cultural media from influencing us on other vectors.

[Hytosys]

The average "SJW's" argument, perhaps. Academia is all up in this problem, though[1].

[1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=video+games+sexism