I've found something strange that keeps happening when I try to argue points on the Internet.  I know, I know.  The Internet is for mindless shouting, not reasoned arguments! Bear with me on this one.  I'm trying to make sense of it.

I have some rather unpopular opinions in the circles I tend to interact with on the subject of heroes, happy endings, uplifting themes, religion, and a whole banquet of other topics.  This doesn't mean that I can't compromise.  I pretty much HAVE to in order to have played CRPGs over the past few years.  But I expect when asked for my opinion, I'm free not to have to constantly couch everything as far as my willing concessions are.  It's like haggling - you don't start your haggling at where you think a fair compromise is, you start at where you feel you would truly win and go from there.

But not only do people not look at it this way, they assume what you say is the compromise, and then people will make assumptions about where your FINAL position is, which is almost always a ridiculously extreme extension on what you say, and attack you on THAT instead.  At this point, any arguments that this is 'not what I meant' is viewed as a concession of defeat or somehow being evasive, when it's really just a correction of poor assumptions.  If I believe (and I do) that monotheistic religions are too often portrayed as universally evil institutions in fantasy books, and that fantasy authors have recently tended to paint all members of those religions as deluded fools or maniacally, power hungry sadist, this DOES NOT mean that I want the direct opposite: that such a church be populated only with saints.  If I believe that the veneration of heroes are an important part of any society, and therefore play an important part in literature, and that the recent over-emphasis on 'anti-heroes' and people who do the right thing only because it's convenient or forced upon them do not have the same sort of appeal or fulfill the same role, this DOES NOT mean that I think the hero cannot have flaws or must be a character-less perfect ideal.  If I believe that women in skimpy bikini armor look fundamentally silly, and have trouble taking any character thus portrayed in any way seriously, this does not mean I insist that all games remove such imagery post-haste.  If I believe that certain games are unhealthy and fundamentally based on very disturbing tendencies, it does not mean I want them all removed from the shelves and believe anyone playing them is or soon will be a mass murderer.  

As touched upon in my 'no politics' post, there seems to be some fundamental desire to expect the worst possible motives from anyone who disagrees with you, even by degrees.  I wish I knew where this came from.  

The end result is that I am often forced into trying to defend positions I don't truly believe in, because it is framed as an all or nothing sort of thing.  If I can't argue for the banning of certain games, then I can't find them offensive and hurtful.  If I can't argue for the perfect ideal hero, then I can't argue against the so-deeply-flawed-as-to-be-indistinguishable-from-a-villain "hero".  If I can't argue for the automatic and easy success of the protagonist, then I can't argue against nihilistic and depressing stories where no one can possibly really 'win'.

I don't claim to be immune to this either.  Ive found myself thinking it sometimes, and arguing it on occasion.  Still doesn't give me any insight as to why it happens.  I just know that when I'm on the receiving end, it is quite vexing.