>>713066613
>Sigh. He was posing his own opinion and observing that it was shared by others.
Lol. No though. That's not at all what his post, or saying "we" in this case, means at all.
>Nobody spoke of your views.
Didn't say they did, retard.
>Nobody spoke of any specific person's views.
Except his own. Which was empowered with "we" to represent a collective instead of his own, despite it being just that: his opinion.
>simply spoke of the subset of gamers who share his perspective.
Except no, he didn't, he made a bunch of his own statements and projected them onto a nebulous collective.
> Nebulous it may be, but that is fine for informal discussion
Informal discussion doesn't mean you get a free pass on what you say. You keep bringing it up, but it doesn't matter. None of this is formality vs informality.
>Perhaps he could have said "people", instead of "we",
Yeah, he could have. It would also be just as stupid though.
>I'm getting bored of going around in circles with you on this. It was more accurate to use "we" than "I"
No, it wasn't. There was nothing relevant about some "we" subset of people who agree black characters are of questionable motivation to include in a game. Yep, you can go find some people who will agree with those views. Too bad the collective isn't here to give their views.
>It was perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that broader sentiment.
Not really, because it wasn't acknowledged in any relevant way whatsoever and, in fact, for the hundredth time, the entire post is a series of personal opinions in the guise of groupthink.
>I'm sorry you're too atomized
I share plenty of sense of community when there is real ground and connection. I don't pretend to speak for my communities when it's my opinion. It's honestly extremely simple, you take your feelings on a subject and you say "I" instead of "we," because you're a singular person talking about your views personally on a situation, not a spokesperson for an imaginary collective.
