>The so called "feminist" conspiracy ruining muh vidya gamez
I guess you stopped keeping up with the complaints since Katawa Shoujo was a thing (pic exactly related). No one is talking about a "feminist conspiracy" anymore, because both the activists and their opponents have moved on to much bigger things. Feminism only plays into this as far as it is a core part of Intersectionality. Right now, and arguably since GamerGate 1 and earlier, the enemy is essentially International Finance. The part that people are overtly complaining about is the ideological stuff, which is not "making women ugly," like a lot here assert, but about attacking "social norms" and "outdated (eg "harmful") values." It's about subverting and deconstructing every classical standard and trope, partly because "muh art," but also to attack and tear down social constructs. And that extends into behavior that is increasingly anti-consumer, because they have come to the horrifying realization that a significant portion of their customer base are terrible or even garbage people who need to be stopped and corrected. They and everyone else not explicitly on-board with their agenda (as in, "list of goals to accomplish") need to be educated on how and exactly why all the things most of them grew up with are problematic and need to be changed.
So, how does International Finance fit into all this? Without getting into any "conspiracy" stuff about their motivations and values, most of the most powerful groups in these circles pretty openly operate with the belief that the way the world works is wrong and it needs to change. So, they and their partners and those under their influence will be a part of ushering in and facilitating that change.
But *how* are they doing it? Again, no real "conspiracy" (read: "outlandish" or "fantastical") stuff here. While, I have yet to find documents outright confirming this (not surprising, since I'm pretty lost when it comes to navigating this area of research), the common assertion is that the two biggest financial players in the West, BlackRock and Vanguard, are the largest shareholders in each other. The way they are structured is that their shareholders are their clients, which makes it seem like their purpose is to execute the will of the people. But, them investing so much in each other makes them effectively the Left Boot/Right Boot of a shared vision, and fuck what the plebs want. This atomizes the influence of their clients, because they serve so many and can rightly expect that none of them would be able to unify their desires enough to make a majority decision on anything related to social values. Next, they are also majority shareholders in most of the big entities in the US (and many abroad), including everything related to culture (business related to sports, news, entertainment, etc.), and often have their own people sit on the board of directors. They (specifically BlackRock, here) also set the rules on ESG and how investment dollars get doled out (they also created and own the electronic system that all the biggest investment firms use: Aladdin). So it is a near-total saturation of influence on industries and the commercial economy, especially that which relates to out culture, which means they have the biggest blanketed influence on what influences the masses, which includes their clients and thus completes the circle of their influence.
Now, don't mistake this as a suggestion that they have complete and total control over everything. It just can sometimes seem that way because they have so much money and bargaining power outside the dollar that they can afford financially disastrous setbacks and to sink money into failing business strategies (like all the "get woke go broke" examples that seem to have not faded away, despite losing so much money on face value — BlackRock keeps investing in them to continue, in many cases). The other main thing is just that they have their fingers in a staggeringly huge amount of pies that it seems like they are absolutely everywhere.
So, it's not that "there are brown people and slightly less attractive women than usual in my game!" It's *why* they are there: to attack systems and the people who benefit from and contribute to them (White people, men, straight people, Traditionalists, "chuds"/"nazis," etc.). People take it as offensive because it is supposed to be. Well, it's that and a "litmus test" to see if you're for them or "problematic"/"on the wrong side of history" based on how you take it (eg as offensive or as progressive). But, even if you are not the target, its intention is, the vast majority of the time, deliberately offensive as an act. And it's not just activists who learned their politics from Tumblr or their 2nd-gen Marxist-adjacent professor, but the biggest investment firms in the world and nearly all gobal Orgs.
