Reading your response, I realize that my issue is mostly with how the manifesto is written. Maybe that's my fault for taking the post too seriously, but I also think if something is written in a deliberately inflammatory way, I think it's only natural for someone to be annoyed (I apologize for being rude). I appreciate you elaborating on your thoughts, and I agree with a lot of what you say here.
I do think that, unfortunately, a lot of new devs have a completely warped idea of what "indie game development" is. I've heard new devs say horrifying things like "I just want to make a small game, like Hollow Knight", they have no concept of anything smaller than that, or at least they can't understand why making anything smaller than that would be worthwhile. Everything is filtered through the lens of successful products and breakout hits. Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of people (especially in America) don't really grow up creating things purely for the joy and richness creativity can bring to their life (and to other's lives). I think loving creativity for its own sake is something you have to learn, and unfortunately I think it's easier to learn this at a younger age. We're really trained to see creativity as a tedious means to an end (AI is probably the most extreme expression of this idea), as if the creative act is only valuable because it can produce something which can then be sold. There's so much pressure to commodify everything: your silly jam game, your shitpost, your little playable poems. It sucks!
I actually do think people should deliberately try to influence the culture of games, as unlikely as it may be for that to actually happen. I don't think it's about being about being "important" or being happier as an artist necessarily, but if you think something is rotten in the culture of games, then I think it's good to attack that through your game. We need to present alternatives to the capital G Gamer, because unlike us itch devs, they truly may not know another world is possible. I've heard gamers refer to The Last of Us as an "indie game"! I would even go as far as to say that it's especially important to do this in commercial games, because that's where you're likely the have the most impact. I don't think that there should be such a rigid separation between steam games/commercial games and itch weirdos (I guess I'm a hypocrite in this regard, because I only make free games on itch). I think we should take advantage of the fact that you can quite easily have your weird personal game live in the same venue as Call of Duty 46 or whatever, as this may not be the case forever. This is maybe the best time in the history of games to even attempt to influence the larger culture surrounding games. The vast majority of us probably won't successfully inspire change for the better in games as a whole, but it's worth it to at least try. At the very least, we might plant the seeds of influence that could grow into something in another generation. We might look back in 20 years, if we're still around, and think "damn, we missed our chance". Of course, as you say, it probably shouldn't be your priority. Making something that you love, something that feels sincere to you is always going to be the most important thing (this in itself is a subversive enough act to be culturally influential, I think). But, somewhat on the contrary, I guess I also do agree with the notion that devs should be realistic with their commercial products, to try to set themselves up for success if they can. There's some kind of happy middle ground that I have trouble defining in concrete terms.
Anyways, sorry for the long reply after an already long reply.
"First we should prioritize being content with ourselves and our worst games. If we happen to make culture along the way so be it."
I agree. I like that idea. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Your post made me think of this video of John Cassavetes talking about filmmaking, specifically the part starting at 2:14. Maybe you've seen it, but I thought I would share it anyways.