Support NeoGAF

[Sylas]

And yet I was told that the criticism's purpose wasn't to prevent stuff from getting green-lighted. Sounds a lot like "trying to take your videogames away". Although I get the feeling Kamitani isn't all that less likely to green-light his own artwork and style. He would also probably disagree with the idea that he would be better off if his trash didn't exist.



"We are going to call you a man-child and you are going to like it!"


I wonder how many people think like CuckFupertino while saying amicable ideas and solutions.

Another takeaway from this is, man. People use a lot of very volatile and inflammatory language to try and get their point across. It looks good at first and gets a kneejerk reaction, but it makes you look like a butt when it's brought under scrutiny.

I mean, this is a fact that anyone that's been on the internet for any length of time understands but geez.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

I totally get the baggage that comes with the term given some people's behavior but I can't recall any attempts to coin new terms for something which there is a perfectly good term available working out well.

It usually just invites mockery and scorn. Dislike the word "gamers" for they way it's been co-opted all you want, but it is a succinct term that has it's meaning embedded into it in an easily understood way.

I feel like we are all stuck together with the good and the bad in this big mess of people whether we like it or not. Being confrontational about the term, as Leigh did, does nothing to promote dialogue about behavior, just invites more tribalism and defensiveness.

 

[marrec]

Person: So what do you do in your spare time?

Me: I'm a writer. Not an author yet, working on my first book. I do some musical composition and arranging. I'm a gamer, video and table top. Few other things to lesser degres. You?

It's a personal identification yes? So Stephen's thoughts on it nor my thoughts on it cannot be taken as an example of the "harassment" of self-identified gamers.

I think it's a stupid moniker that brings to mind embarrassing things and so I don't publicly label myself as it... but in the end I begrudgingly accept the fact that I am The Wizard. So calling Stephen's comment embarrassing is, I think, looking for a fight where there certainly isn't one.

Also, are you going to get back to me on my last post or are we just done having that conversation.

I've thought a lot about your reply and cannot find a way to continue the conversation. I fundamentally believe that gamers aren't being unfairly targeted or harassed or bullied.

You feel that a few writers have given the media cause to vilify gamers again but they never needed any excuse for that and gamers have long given mainstream media enough ammo to fire hit-pieces at the entire community. Which brings me back to the Leigh Alexander quote on vacuums. We, as gamers, have sown the seeds for this stereotype since the beginning of gaming because we unironically accept the exclusiveness of our hobby... or at least we did for the vast majority of our hobby.

That said... it's not like the Wall Street Journal is out there calling for gamers to be thrown into the streets because of this or any gaming journalists articles.

 

[IrishNinja]

Why is it "MRA crap?" For some reason I expected better of you.

...because it is? there's a few points within (custody rights, male rape/prisoner rights etc) no doubt but the overlap with genuine misogyny & creepy PUA stuff is pretty heavy from every source ive seen online. nevermind a staunch defense of status quo strikes me as the logical equivalent of conservative friends asking why we don't have white history month/white entertainment network/etc, it's such a fundamentally warped perspective that i don't know where to begin, so yes, dismissing it as crap is a fairly rational response.

not sure which encounters we've had prior to leave you with certain expectations, but apparently i'm not living up to them.

RPS is one of the major gaming sites now? Dope.

yeah, that kinda came up outta nowhere for me, too

Or not at all, actually. But whatever, pre-conceived notions and all that.

notions about Adam Baldwin's views as crap, or the 4chan hashtag you were digging?

And comparing it to MRA stuff is more than a little disingenuous. Or are people like OMGfloofy and Boogie sexist trolls too?

your boy Baldwin does champion that cause. to answer your question: not familiar with those people & their views, so a decisive "maybe"

I said interesting last night, primarily because the whole tag was fairly new as of then, and I wasn't sure where it was going. Since then it's been fairly positive, though knowing twitter, I doubt that will last the day. It seems to come out more as a response to the attack on self-identified gamers than anything else.

that's one take, another is that 4chan found a neat way to continue demonizing feminists/etc as evil SJW's because a few folks like Leigh Alexander opened the door to shit on the term "gamer", so that's where the goalposts are now. kinda glad to only be loosely following this mess at this point, wasn't really expecting the actual cause advanced much but there's been some genuine ugliness about & i'm grateful for missing as much of it as i could.

 

[MHWilliams]

I agree with your point, which leads me to ask, do you ever find it challenging that some of the outlets that decide to call out for diversity in gaming, have almost no ethnic diversity with their hiring habits? Cause it bothers me.

Of course. It's a big problem and one that stems from a few issues:

- Journalism as a whole is a middle-to-upper-middle career. (Not in salary.) When you're starting out you need to have a solid support structure, because you're not making any money. My first two years doing news for GI.biz were for free or very, very low-pay. This worked because I had a full-time job, I did the news stuff on the side. That's not a situation that's available for many. This tends to work against poor people, meaning is disproportionally effects minorities.

- Hiring in the games industry - like most industries - tends to be based on culture or visibility. In the culture column, it's well noted that businesses hire those who share their views or cultural makeup. This can lead to racist or sexist situations without intention. A management team of white male nerds are more likely to hire the same. Visibility can trump that aspect - people will go with an Ezra Klein over their friend - but visibility tends to come from existing outlets. So you have the same pool of people shuffling from site-to-site. Hiring outside of those issues requires a concerted effort to do so and most outlets don't do that. It is getting better - Polygon improved outside of its first hire, Nerdist picked up Malik, Kotaku is generally pretty good - but there's still major room for improvement.

- Regional issues. Most major outlets require you to work from an office. These office are generally where the developers are: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Those places aren't cheap to live and starting salaries for game journalists don't cover much in the way of rent. See point 1 again.

- Just starting out. Perception fuels what we do. Wants more minority or female writers? Show more minority or female writers. That shows the next generation that its a possible path of success, see: the NBA, the NFL, and music industries. Show the success and younger people will emulate that, meaning they're working on their craft from a early age. It's better for a journalist to start in high school or college, when working for free/near-free isn't to a detriment.

I'm lucky in that I can work from a home office and my girlfriend is a programmer (for mobile apps not games) so she makes far more money than I do. That's actually rather normal for many of us: we have significant others that pick up the slack.

I'm at USgamer based on my news and feature work at GI.biz. Meaning I'm at USgamer because they knew me and my work, which only happened because I could work for cheap.

 

[Abelian75]

Is it, though? I mean, I thought this way not too long ago myself. But now I'm starting to think that the press, particularly those vocal about equality and inclusiveness, are too close to all the abuse to realize that most of us who enjoy video games are normal guys and gals. Ask your average person on the street what a gamer is. They might not have glowing things to say, they might bring up Cheetos or Mountain Dew or Call of Duty, but I don't think they're going to rant about abusive misogynistic white males. The hyper-enthusiast part of this culture, both writers and players, are perpetuating the idea of a stereotype that I don't think actually exists outside of our own heads.

Yeah, when I was at PAX, I met two people in some bars in my neighborhood who only tangentially knew of PAX (because they live in Seattle), clearly don't read any of these sites, etc. Yet they were both like, "Oh, cool! I'm a huge gamer, I've been thinking of going to that some year." Seriously, it's not that weird a term.

Now, granted, this is in Seattle. Might be different in different places.

 

[unbias]

I totally get the baggage that comes with the term given some people's behavior but I can't recall any attempts to coin new terms for something which there is a perfectly good term available working out well.

It usually just invites mockery and scorn. Dislike the word "gamers" for they way it's been co-opted all you want, but it is a succinct term that has it's meaning embedded into it in an easily understood way.

I feel like we are all stuck together with the good and the bad in this big mess of people whether we like it or not. Being confrontational about the term, as Leigh did, does nothing to promote dialogue about behavior, just invites more tribalism and defensiveness.

If you read her blog, she understood exactly what she was doing. If you read that blog article and then put into context what she wrote that cause this whole mess, it isn't a stretch to say she did it for self promotion, more then anything else.

It’s sort of a sensible demand, and I agree with the sentiment that the industry needs more celebrities, more champions, more people that can really stand at the forefront of things as beloved ambassadors — as Cliff Bleszinski says in Gamasutra’s current feature, “visionaries.” We’ve got a few of those, of course, but generally those folks don’t talk to the media much. They tend to be “Wizard of Oz” personas behind the scenes, don’t they?

blogs not only have more freedom to make entertainment more important than ethics, but they also frequently have a devoted community around them that enjoys being free to speak back. So news sites like Edge (and like its competitor, Gamasutra, which employs me) face stiff competition in attaining an audience’s attention.

Not an excuse, I know; that’s just business. And as Wolf_Dog wrote to me in a recent email, “sensationalism is nothing new.” But I think we’ve got something a little different here in the games biz, something unique to us, that makes it complicated.

It's not personal, it's business. So ya, I dunno, you can read that and think it's fine and harmless, or you can read that as problematic and an advocate for gonzo journalism. I guess it is all about perspective and what you think actually benefits you, the consumer, I guess. I just hope it isn't this on the whole, for people, personally.

 

[AstroNut325]

I'm finally coming up to speed on the recent developments. I knew there was corruption... but this rabbit hole goes deeper than I ever imagined. No thank you. I will not be supporting any sites that attack "gamers." I was already avoiding everything IGN and Vox. I'll just add more to the list.

 

[Ordinator]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

Why do you think that is bizarre? I am genuinely curious. If the hobby is a passion, I don't see the problem.

EDIT: I just realized you were stating Stephen Totilo's point/opinion and not necessarily your own. I should have asked him, not you.

 

[unbias]

Of course. It's a big problem and one that stems from a few issues:

- Journalism as a whole is a middle-to-upper-middle career. (Not in salary.) When you're starting out you need to have a solid support structure, because you're not making any money. My first two years doing news for GI.biz were for free or very, very low-pay. This worked because I had a full-time job, I did the news stuff on the side. That's not a situation that's available for many. This tends to work against poor people, meaning is disproportionally effects minorities.

- Hiring in the games industry - like most industries - tends to be based on culture or visibility. In the culture column, it's well noted that businesses hire those who share their views or cultural makeup. This can lead to racist or sexist situations without intention. A management team of white male nerds are more likely to hire the same. Visibility can trump that aspect - people will go with an Ezra Klein over their friend - but visibility tends to come from existing outlets. So you have the same pool of people shuffling from site-to-site. Hiring outside of those issues requires a concerted effort to do so and most outlets don't do that. It is getting better - Polygon improved outside of its first hire, Nerdist picked up Malik, Kotaku is generally pretty good - but there's still major room for improvement.

- Regional issues. Most major outlets require you to work from an office. These office are generally where the developers are: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Those places aren't cheap to live and starting salaries for game journalists don't cover much in the way of rent. See point 1 again.

- Just starting out. Perception fuels what we do. Wants more minority or female writers? Show more minority or female writers. That shows the next generation that its a possible path of success, see: the NBA, the NFL, and music industries. Show the success and younger people will emulate that, meaning they're working on their craft from a early age. It's better for a journalist to start in high school or college, when working for free/near-free isn't to a detriment.

I'm lucky in that I can work from a home office and my girlfriend is a programmer (for mobile apps not games) so she makes far more money than I do. That's actually rather normal for many of us: we have significant others that pick up the slack.

I'm at USgamer based on my news and feature work at GI.biz. Meaning I'm at USgamer because they knew me and my work, which only happened because I could work for cheap.

Well props to you man. Hopefully more follow your example, but more importantly hopefully it gets easier for others as well. I just feel this undercurrent of in-fighting is missing some points, that I think are just incredibly more important, that doesn't get tackled because everyone gets uncomfortable around it(press and consumers).

 

[Abelian75]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

Yeah, I just don't know if I agree, Jason. I mean, I see where you might be coming from... like, sure, there's a point where it'd be a little weird if the ONLY thing you identify with is being a gamer. But surely the random people I meet that hear I like video games and then are like, "Oh, cool, I'm a big gamer too!" are not weird, right? I mean, this is right after one of them talked about how they just hiked Mt. Rainier.

I'm trying to be as charitable as possible, but I feel like we're kind of in crazy land here. Sure, there are absolutely really weird, obnoxious gamers, but I feel like all of a sudden everyone just decided that those people are one and the same as people who call themselves gamers... despite extremely casual (by our standard) fans of gaming also calling themselves gamers. And snowboarders. And hikers. Or whatever the fuck.

I mean, fuck, am I weird for saying I'm a runner? Some dude on the plane just asked me if I'm a biker. Is he a freak now?

 

[JABEE]

I dunno man... If you are going to be an advocate for change, you should be talking about applying at least something similar to the rooney rule to the industry. If people truly care about diversity, tackling the stuff that makes us uncomfortable is part of a journalists job, is it not? And I think the fact that we have so many people in the industry that dont even have degree's in journalism writing for websites, I dont think degree qualification is a good enough excuse, either. We see in the fighting game and sports scene that there are plenty of diversity in this scene, so you would think it would be easier to find someone who could speak to an audience better. And there is some research that suggests black people and hispanic people play more games, per capita, then white people. So I find it hard to simply accept that it is simply due to a lack of qualified people of a minority.

You will also see a lot of the same people moving around from one outlet to another. As an outsider there always seems to be a clubhouse mentality in the games press.

 

[Shinta]

Of course. It's a big problem and one that stems from a few issues:

- Journalism as a whole is a middle-to-upper-middle career. (Not in salary.) When you're starting out you need to have a solid support structure, because you're not making any money. My first two years doing news for GI.biz were for free or very, very low-pay. This worked because I had a full-time job, I did the news stuff on the side. That's not a situation that's available for many. This tends to work against poor people, meaning is disproportionally effects minorities.

- Hiring in the games industry - like most industries - tends to be based on culture or visibility. In the culture column, it's well noted that businesses hire those who share their views or cultural makeup. This can lead to racist or sexist situations without intention. A management team of white male nerds are more likely to hire the same. Visibility can trump that aspect - people will go with an Ezra Klein over their friend - but visibility tends to come from existing outlets. So you have the same pool of people shuffling from site-to-site. Hiring outside of those issues requires a concerted effort to do so and most outlets don't do that. It is getting better - Polygon improved outside of its first hire, Nerdist picked up Malik, Kotaku is generally pretty good - but there's still major room for improvement.

- Regional issues. Most major outlets require you to work from an office. These office are generally where the developers are: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Those places aren't cheap to live and starting salaries for game journalists don't cover much in the way of rent. See point 1 again.

- Just starting out. Perception fuels what we do. Wants more minority or female writers? Show more minority or female writers. That shows the next generation that its a possible path of success, see: the NBA, the NFL, and music industries. Show the success and younger people will emulate that, meaning they're working on their craft from a early age. It's better for a journalist to start in high school or college, when working for free/near-free isn't to a detriment.

I'm lucky in that I can work from a home office and my girlfriend is a programmer (for mobile apps not games) so she makes far more money than I do. That's actually rather normal for many of us: we have significant others that pick up the slack.

I'm at USgamer based on my news and feature work at GI.biz. Meaning I'm at USgamer because they knew me and my work, which only happened because I could work for cheap.

Lots of interesting points made in here. Nice.

 

[Cyrano]

I think I'm saying the same thing, or at least close to it. Maybe? I wasn't suggesting that the groups of "I love playing games" and "I'm interested in the role of games in society" are without overlap. Probably there is a lot of overlap (I'm certainly in both groups, myself). I guess I'm saying that there might be some value in it being more obvious WHICH thing is being talked about by a particular writer/gaming site. Right now they're all mushed together.

One of the more obvious problems I can see is that by presenting both things at once, when you are discussing a social issue, is that it can make it hard to distinguish between "I don't care about social issues, I just care about games" and "I don't agree with this approach to this social issue". As a result, it might be making it harder to have actual debate, because the people interested in a different approach are hard to distinguish from the people who don't give a shit.

I should probably clarify that I'm not actually sure this is a problem or that I'm right about this, but it is something I've been thinking about. Clearly SOMETHING is wrong. I'm definitely not on board with just assuming gamers are predominantly shitheads, and much more interested in finding out what is going on with the framing of these conversations that is causing them to, quite clearly, not work very well at all.

As Pat said in the article earlier linked, the terminology is toxic because of its association. As he says, words have meaning and the association of the terminology has compounded into something rather dark.

Still, I'm not terribly interested in the terminology because I don't like the term and don't self-identify as one. I'm more interested in the ethical issues surrounding journalistic practices and the current game culture. The issue is that culture and journalism seem uncomfortably close in current media, and that a degree of separation between the two would likely be helpful.

If we are going to discuss terminologies, I think there's a good piece on geek culture by Ian Williams here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/08/on-geek-culture/

In particular, this is often what I see the problem as:

Neoliberalism has made geeks of us all: jocks, nerds, and dweebs alike. In the background are the corporate owners of the media which geeks love, setting man against woman, rich against poor, black and brown against white, all on manufactured lines of consumption. Ideally, the commonalities of working class identity would trump these, easily and swiftly, revealing the absurdity of the heated arguments between consumption cohorts which geek culture identity politics stir up.

 

[RadarScope1]

Just to chime on in the bolded, and it's really just my own reasoning.

It's because people like Leigh Alexander are loud. They are loud enough to draw attention from the "outside" world.

Being a gamer is something that was stigmatized to the point of having bones broken for a lot of people. Bullying, harassment; just a general bad time for a lot of people that grew up in the 80s and 90s. Only recently was it acceptable in a lot of places to even talk about your love of videogames in a public setting. There was a single Penny Arcade Report (I know, I know) article about how Ben Kuchera was celebrating the fact that you could walk around and proudly talk about how you were a "gamer" these days. It was met with a lot of feedback from people going, "Uh, no. Sadly, I still get bullied in the workplace for identifying as a gamer. I've even had my job threatened because I talked about videogames."

But for a while there, and even going forward, identifying as a "gamer" was not a bad thing. It didn't mean you were met with ridicule for simply talking about something you enjoyed.

Now? I can understand the fear of loud people talking about how "gamers are losers." Loud people are the ones that control the discourse of public opinion. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way. It's not fun when someone with a platform starts putting down a group of people.

Do you think the general public can easily identify the "good gamers" from the "bad gamers"?

Good post and I've been thinking about this myself. I'm asking myself - why is this neck beard asshole perception about gamers so damn persistent? It's because people like me don't speak up and say - in real life to people we know - "I'm a gamer." I'm a successful professional, husband, dad, active community volunteer and generally normal person in his 30s. If I weren't so closeted about my hobby more people might know that "gamers" are just like everyone else. I can affect a sliver of the universe around me. And others can do the same. And still others.

I'm making it a new personal goal to muchore open about it. I have no reason to fear doing so any more.

 

[IrishNinja]

Of course. It's a big problem and one that stems from a few issues:

- Journalism as a whole is a middle-to-upper-middle career. (Not in salary.) When you're starting out you need to have a solid support structure, because you're not making any money. My first two years doing news for GI.biz were for free or very, very low-pay. This worked because I had a full-time job, I did the news stuff on the side. That's not a situation that's available for many. This tends to work against poor people, meaning is disproportionally effects minorities.

- Hiring in the games industry - like most industries - tends to be based on culture or visibility. In the culture column, it's well noted that businesses hire those who share their views or cultural makeup. This can lead to racist or sexist situations without intention. A management team of white male nerds are more likely to hire the same. Visibility can trump that aspect - people will go with an Ezra Klein over their friend - but visibility tends to come from existing outlets. So you have the same pool of people shuffling from site-to-site. Hiring outside of those issues requires a concerted effort to do so and most outlets don't do that. It is getting better - Polygon improved outside of its first hire, Nerdist picked up Malik, Kotaku is generally pretty good - but there's still major room for improvement.

- Regional issues. Most major outlets require you to work from an office. These office are generally where the developers are: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Those places aren't cheap to live and starting salaries for game journalists don't cover much in the way of rent. See point 1 again.

- Just starting out. Perception fuels what we do. Wants more minority or female writers? Show more minority or female writers. That shows the next generation that its a possible path of success, see: the NBA, the NFL, and music industries. Show the success and younger people will emulate that, meaning they're working on their craft from a early age. It's better for a journalist to start in high school or college, when working for free/near-free isn't to a detriment.

I'm lucky in that I can work from a home office and my girlfriend is a programmer (for mobile apps not games) so she makes far more money than I do. That's actually rather normal for many of us: we have significant others that pick up the slack.

I'm at USgamer based on my news and feature work at GI.biz. Meaning I'm at USgamer because they knew me and my work, which only happened because I could work for cheap.

i know i'm the 3rd dude to obnoxiously quote a large post in its entirety, but this is a good one & wanted to thank you for the perspective.

 

[JABEE]

Of course. It's a big problem and one that stems from a few issues:

- Journalism as a whole is a middle-to-upper-middle career. (Not in salary.) When you're starting out you need to have a solid support structure, because you're not making any money. My first two years doing news for GI.biz were for free or very, very low-pay. This worked because I had a full-time job, I did the news stuff on the side. That's not a situation that's available for many. This tends to work against poor people, meaning is disproportionally effects minorities.

- Hiring in the games industry - like most industries - tends to be based on culture or visibility. In the culture column, it's well noted that businesses hire those who share their views or cultural makeup. This can lead to racist or sexist situations without intention. A management team of white male nerds are more likely to hire the same. Visibility can trump that aspect - people will go with an Ezra Klein over their friend - but visibility tends to come from existing outlets. So you have the same pool of people shuffling from site-to-site. Hiring outside of those issues requires a concerted effort to do so and most outlets don't do that. It is getting better - Polygon improved outside of its first hire, Nerdist picked up Malik, Kotaku is generally pretty good - but there's still major room for improvement.

- Regional issues. Most major outlets require you to work from an office. These office are generally where the developers are: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Those places aren't cheap to live and starting salaries for game journalists don't cover much in the way of rent. See point 1 again.

- Just starting out. Perception fuels what we do. Wants more minority or female writers? Show more minority or female writers. That shows the next generation that its a possible path of success, see: the NBA, the NFL, and music industries. Show the success and younger people will emulate that, meaning they're working on their craft from a early age. It's better for a journalist to start in high school or college, when working for free/near-free isn't to a detriment.

I'm lucky in that I can work from a home office and my girlfriend is a programmer (for mobile apps not games) so she makes far more money than I do. That's actually rather normal for many of us: we have significant others that pick up the slack.

I'm at USgamer based on my news and feature work at GI.biz. Meaning I'm at USgamer because they knew me and my work, which only happened because I could work for cheap.

These are some really good points. And it's no wonder that people constantly jump from the press to the other side. Who can raise a family or even live in those places in a profession that doesn't pay? I'm guessing many hit an age or situation where they are on their own or need to support others and can no longer live on a games writer's salary.

There are also less and less outlets. The highest places you can go for advancement is industry job and EIC, and there are only so many heads when there is so much consolidation.

 

[Ponn]

It's a personal identification yes? So Stephen's thoughts on it nor my thoughts on it cannot be taken as an example of the "harassment" of self-identified gamers.

I think it's a stupid moniker that brings to mind embarrassing things and so I don't publicly label myself as it... but in the end I begrudgingly accept the fact that I am The Wizard. So calling Stephen's comment embarrassing is, I think, looking for a fight where there certainly isn't one.



I've thought a lot about your reply and cannot find a way to continue the conversation. I fundamentally believe that gamers aren't being unfairly targeted or harassed or bullied.

You feel that a few writers have given the media cause to vilify gamers again but they never needed any excuse for that and gamers have long given mainstream media enough ammo to fire hit-pieces at the entire community. Which brings me back to the Leigh Alexander quote on vacuums. We, as gamers, have sown the seeds for this stereotype since the beginning of gaming because we unironically accept the exclusiveness of our hobby... or at least we did for the vast majority of our hobby.

That said... it's not like the Wall Street Journal is out there calling for gamers to be thrown into the streets because of this or any gaming journalists articles.

I see alot of self loathing here.

i've been through the bullying stages of life when younger, not being popular, being a gamer instead of a jock. Parents thinking me and my friends were doing evil things. Few times standing up for who i was and not putting up with the bullshit of insults and getting beaten down for it. Ever been chased down a street and pulled off your bike and beaten up by kids on the side of the road while traffic just kept passing by? Why? Because of my identity. You can insert different identities there and i can't see how any of them deserve that type of ridicule. And hey guess what, it did leave mental scarring among other things that happened in my youth, something Leigh casually points as a stereotype to be mocked. Wait wait wait, i know, its ME taking it the wrong way.

Not everyone that goes through the bullying and insults of being a social outcast turn out to be bad people but you would think with a bunch of supposed progressives they would show a bit more empathy to people with possible social disorders. Nope instead lets again put people who choose to identify as gamers through bullying, shaming and insulting ringer all over again. And why?

I think it's a stupid moniker that brings to mind embarrassing things and so I don't publicly label myself as it... but in the end I begrudgingly accept the fact that I am The Wizard.

Glad to see people making those choices for the rest of us, especially those that admit they already held a bias against a term to begin with. Perhaps, maybe, just maybe thats why its so easy for you to disassociate from it to begin with and not understand why others are pretty peed off by it? "Stop being embarrassing and grow up and get a thicker skin!"

Go through all the mental gymnastics you want to make yourself feel good about what you are supporting. I understand what some are trying to fight for, that doesn't mean you have to blindly support the tactics being used to get to your agenda. i'm very familiar with the different levels of bullying and shaming, not all of them are obvious. When did it become acceptable to plug your ears, close your eyes and go lalala while a large group of people tell you what you are doing and saying is harmful, hurtful and insulting? How can you act like that, and then turn around expect others to do the same for you unquestionably? You know how many times I was bullied as a kid only to hear "well you are just taking it wrong"

 

[MHWilliams]

Well props to you man.

Lots of interesting points made in here. Nice.

Thanks.

Hopefully more follow your example, but more importantly hopefully it gets easier for others as well. I just feel this undercurrent of in-fighting is missing some points, that I think are just incredibly more important, that doesn't get tackled because everyone gets uncomfortable around it(press and consumers).

Journalism like anything else, is never above criticism and it can always be improved. That's part of the reason I enjoy reading the thread for the most part. I dislike the "journalists are all corrupt" statements that pop up occasionally, but the best thing I can do is keep doing good, solid work and being transparent otherwise.

 

[Abelian75]

As Pat said in the article earlier linked, the terminology is toxic because of its association. As he says, words have meaning and the association of the terminology has compounded into something rather dark.

Still, I'm not terribly interested in the terminology because I don't like the term and don't self-identify as one. I'm more interested in the ethical issues surrounding journalistic practices and the current game culture. The issue is that culture and journalism seem uncomfortably close in current media, and that a degree of separation between the two would likely be helpful.

If we are going to discuss terminologies, I think there's a good piece on geek culture by Ian Williams here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/08/on-geek-culture/

In particular, this is often what I see the problem as:

Ah, I think I'm beginning to see what you're getting at. Interesting. I'll have to think on that, but thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Vlade]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

Quite the contrary, we normally identify ourselves by what we do. Would it not be more strange if we only ever identified ourselves by our career?

 

[Moon_frogger]

Again though we're (not... me, okay you're) building this ire out of a house of cards. Twitter is anything but an avenue for nuance or complexity and the integrity of journalists cannot be called into question because they didn't participate in a stupid hashtag slap fight.

For example, Leigh Alexander didn't participate that I can find.

Their passion for games shouldn't be called into question because of something as banal as #describeagamerin4words.

The thread has been lost in all the anger though. People are made at journalists for corruption... or for marginalization... or... SOMETHING! And nobody knows what journalists can do to stop the anger because it was spawned from persecution that was never there. In response some journalists and some developers have given sideways sneers at "gamers" by enthusiastically insulting them but just as with the death of "gamers" debate it's not even a large minority who're doing this.



Metacritic is the be all end all for games criticism?

There aren't many recorded critical reviews of Depression Quest because it's not a traditional game that Edge is going to review.

I could describe Candy Box as being critically acclaimed without needed back-up from Metacritic as well.



What do you mean by this?

I know you're trying to bait me into saying depression quest isn't a game but I won't because I don't believe in excluding any form of interactive entertainment so dismissively. Plus, it's clearly a text adventure which is a genre I love. Also you answer your own question AND prove it isn't critically acclaimed in the slightest when you say there aren't very many reviews FULL STOP end of argument. Metacritic may not be a good place to judge a games quality but it's certainly a place to judge if a game is critically acclaimed or not. Which it isn't because the game itself has been universally ignored other than it's attachment to controversy. Wonder why that is?

 

[Mononoke]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

Why is it bizarre, and why do people care if others identify themselves with their hobby? Various hobbies/mediums have their own sub-culture. If someone relates and identifies with that sub-culture, what is so wrong with that?

And before you say the piece wasn't arguing against people doing these things, you just said it was bizarre. Why? Just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue just to argue. I respect your opinions a lot, and I think you do some of the best work in the industry (on the media side of things). But I'm not really sure I understand why there is this push to get rid of the gamer label, or why anyone cares that people like to identify with their hobby/or another culture.

If the argument is that, it's these people that are getting angry at any criticism of the industry (ie. anti feminist)...then okay. But that doesn't hold true for all people that identify as a gamer. So I don't see why because some of these people are not open to criticisms, suddenly this identification should be looked down upon for anyone that likes to identify with their hobby. It feels like you are telling these people that can't or should not do this, and if they do, then they are losers. It again goes back to the us vs. them mentality, and if you don't agree with me then fuck you.

 

[Interfectum]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

"I'm a football fan."

"I'm a long-distance runner."

"I'm a Neal Stephenson fan."

"I'm a gamer."

"I'm a surfer."

I don't think it's that bizarre. It's an easy way to tell someone what your likes and dislikes are.

Sometimes it feels like games journalists live inside this bubble and just feed off each other's bullshit with little to no understanding what goes on outside of gaming forums or Twitter. #gamergate (lol)

 

[JABEE]

Quite the contrary, we normally identify ourselves by what we do. Would it not be more strange if we only ever identified ourselves by our career?

Yeah. I'm not quite getting that point. There are plenty of people that identify themselves by different things. People may believe that video games are not important enough to identify themselves. I think that's kind of a judgement for someone to make on their own.

I would say I'm a sports fan. That's something I identify myself by. I spend a lot of time watching and discussing sports. I used to play sports too. It's part of our culture and I enjoy it enough that I would identify myself as an Eagles, Flyers, Phillies, and an overall sports fan.

There's nothing weird about identifying yourself as one of these things. It may be weird for some if that these were the only things I identified myself by, but then my only crime would be a lack of sophistication, which is hardly worthy of scorn. I think people have many things that they would identify themselves by like their career, their religion, their hobbies, their sexuality, their politics etc.

I think the big problem people have is not identifying themselves by a hobby, but it is with identifying themselves with this hobby. That if you're a "gamer," then you're unsophisticated and have a narrow vision of the world. It may be true for many, but it's not true for all that would call themselves gamers.

 

[unbias]

Why is it bizarre, and why do people care if others identify themselves with their hobby? Various hobbies/mediums have their own sub-culture. If someone relates and identifies with that sub-culture, what is so wrong with that?

It's right there in the text. Totilo(or Jason) find it:

bizarre, bizarro, cranky, crazy, curious, eccentric, erratic, far-out, funky, funny, kinky, kooky (also kookie), offbeat, off-kilter, off-the-wall, outlandish, out-of-the-way, outré, peculiar, quaint, queer, queerish, quirky, remarkable, rum [chiefly British], screwy, spaced-out, strange, wacky (also whacky), way-out, weird, weirdo, wild

The implications seem to be it doesn't fit "normal", would be my guess.

 

[Gsak]

You are totally missing his point, which is that it is bizarre to identify oneself by a hobby.

This is Kotaku's "About" page text:

Thank you for reading Kotaku, a news and opinion site about games and things serious gamers care about. We're here to inform you and, sometimes, entertain you.

We aim to be an inclusive site for gamers of any ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. We expect our writers and commenters to treat those they write about as they would if they met them in person. For more on what that means, on the values we embrace and on what lines we expect writers and commenters not to cross, please read this.

I won't comment on whether the site and its writers held true to these statements. But I will ask you this: Do you really thing the term "Gamer" should become obsolete? Because Kotaku sure as hell used it a lot, due to it being a "gaming" site. Or are you talking about redefining the term?

My personal opinion is that Gamers are people who enjoy games and if they choose so, their culture. Having said this, I have to say: If you think this whole thing is just about a "label", then you are willingly putting on blindfolds and earplugs.

 

[Curufinwe]

Cinephiles are over. Bookworms are over. Basketball players are OVER.

Don't identify yourself by your hobbies or the writers covering your hobby are going to vilify you.

(Oh wait that only happens in video games for some reason.)

I guess I can't admit to being a soccer fan because Eastern European soccer fans sometimes throw bananas at black players, or being a hockey fan because some hockey fans racially abused black hockey players on twitter.

"I'm a football fan."

"I'm a long-distance runner."

"I'm a Neal Stephenson fan."

"I'm a gamer."

"I'm a surfer."

I don't think it's that bizarre. It's an easy way to tell someone what your likes and dislikes are.

Sometimes it feels like games journalists live inside this bubble and just feed off each other's bullshit with little to no understanding what goes on outside of gaming forums or Twitter. #gamergate (lol)

They do tend to come across as some of the most sheltered people on the planet.

 

[Mononoke]

It's right there in the text. Totilo(or Jason) find it:

bizarre, bizarro, cranky, crazy, curious, eccentric, erratic, far-out, funky, funny, kinky, kooky (also kookie), offbeat, off-kilter, off-the-wall, outlandish, out-of-the-way, outré, peculiar, quaint, queer, queerish, quirky, remarkable, rum [chiefly British], screwy, spaced-out, strange, wacky (also whacky), way-out, weird, weirdo, wild

The implications seem to be it doesn't fit "normal", would be my guess.

I don't see why it's not normal to identify with sub cultures. People have been doing it for ages. But even if you don't think it's normal, why do you care if other people are doing something you don't think is normal. Just feels weird trying to define what is normal, and telling people how they should act (just because it's your definition of normal).

If someone identifies with their hobby (and the sub-culture that is apart of it), I don't really see why that is a problem.

 

[The Adder]

It's a personal identification yes? So Stephen's thoughts on it nor my thoughts on it cannot be taken as an example of the "harassment" of self-identified gamers.

Could you do me a big favor and stop putting words into my mouth? Thank you.

I think it's a stupid moniker that brings to mind embarrassing things and so I don't publicly label myself as it...

When did you go from never stop being a gamer to "it's a stupid moniker."

Also, kind of hitting on my original point here.

So calling Stephen's comment embarrassing is, I think, looking for a fight where there certainly isn't one.

Why are you saying this to me?

I've thought a lot about your reply and cannot find a way to continue the conversation. I fundamentally believe that gamers aren't being unfairly targeted or harassed or bullied.

Why the hell do you believe yourself such an authority on what Leigh Alexander meant when you have such a hard time intepretting something someone who has been talking to you for hours, you personally, is telling you in plain English?

You have no earthly idea how frustrating that is.

Find the words harassed, targeted, or bullied in any of my posts.

You'll find target, but not in the same context.

I've seen you post. I know you're smart, so I don't see how you don't get this. Vlade got it in his one and only post to me.

You feel that a few writers have given the media cause to vilify gamers again but they never needed any excuse for that and gamers have long given mainstream media enough ammo to fire hit-pieces at the entire community. Which brings me back to the Leigh Alexander quote on vacuums. We, as gamers, have sown the seeds for this stereotype since the beginning of gaming because we unironically accept the exclusiveness of our hobby... or at least we did for the vast majority of our hobby.

WE haven't done anything. Gamers haven't done anything. Assholes who also happen to be gamers, who up until this post you agreed to be a minority, have done terrible things. And no one, not even you anymore are making that distinction.

But then you turn around and say it's not an indictment meant for the decent folks who identify as gamers.

While also saying that those people are still responsible for the shitty ones (ironically on a gaming site known to police its members well).

While also saying that the writers who started th is mess up aren't complicit by way of silence in the actions of the "small minority"of their colleagues who ARE broadly generalizing every person who identifies as a gamer.

Which you say is wrong but then say the term is embarassing.

I have never seen someone bend in so many ways to say "the people I like in this argument are guilty of doing absolutely nothing wrong!"

That said... it's not like the Wall Street Journal is out there calling for gamers to be thrown into the streets because of this or any gaming journalists articles.

Nice job missing the point one last time.

 

[Curufinwe]

This is Kotaku's "About" page text:

Thank you for reading Kotaku, a news and opinion site about games and things serious gamers care about. We're here to inform you and, sometimes, entertain you.

We aim to be an inclusive site for gamers of any ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. We expect our writers and commenters to treat those they write about as they would if they met them in person. For more on what that means, on the values we embrace and on what lines we expect writers and commenters not to cross, please read this.

I won't comment on whether the site and its writers held true to these statements. But I will ask you this: Do you really thing the term "Gamer" should become obsolete? Because Kotaku sure as hell used it a lot, due to it being a "gaming" site. Or are you talking about redefining the term?

Good catch, lol.

 

[unbias]

I don't see why it's not normal to identify with sub cultures. People have been doing it for ages. But even if you don't think it's normal, why do you care if other people are doing something you don't think is normal. Just feels weird trying to define what is normal, and telling people how they should act (just because it's your definition of normal).

If someone identifies with their hobby (and the sub-culture that is apart of it), I don't really see why that is a problem.

I agree with you, specially since "normal" is very relative and a...precarious position to take. However when someone says it is bizarre it normally is self explanatory, it's weird to them, and there is connotations to being weird and they would rather not be labeled as such. It's hard to infer much from this other the,n perhaps, their social circle if as adults they are worried about this.

 

[RadarScope1]

I see alot of self loathing here.

i've been through the bullying stages of life when younger, not being popular, being a gamer instead of a jock. Parents thinking me and my friends were doing evil things. Few times standing up for who i was and not putting up with the bullshit of insults and getting beaten down for it. Ever been chased down a street and pulled off your bike and beaten up by kids on the side of the road while traffic just kept passing by? Why? Because of my identity. You can insert different identities there and i can't see how any of them deserve that type of ridicule. And hey guess what, it did leave mental scarring among other things that happened in my youth, something Leigh casually points as a stereotype to be mocked. Wait wait wait, i know, its ME taking it the wrong way.

Not everyone that goes through the bullying and insults of being a social outcast turn out to be bad people but you would think with a bunch of supposed progressives they would show a bit more empathy to people with possible social disorders. Nope instead lets again put people who choose to identify as gamers through bullying, shaming and insulting ringer all over again. And why?



Glad to see people making those choices for the rest of us, especially those that admit they already held a bias against a term to begin with. Perhaps, maybe, just maybe thats why its so easy for you to disassociate from it to begin with and not understand why others are pretty peed off by it? "Stop being embarrassing and grow up and get a thicker skin!"

Go through all the mental gymnastics you want to make yourself feel good about what you are supporting. I understand what some are trying to fight for, that doesn't mean you have to blindly support the tactics being used to get to your agenda. i'm very familiar with the different levels of bullying and shaming, not all of them are obvious. When did it become acceptable to plug your ears, close your eyes and go lalala while a large group of people tell you what you are doing and saying is harmful, hurtful and insulting? How can you act like that, and then turn around expect others to do the same for you unquestionably? You know how many times I was bullied as a kid only to hear "well you are just taking it wrong"

Thanks for this perspective.

I think it's worth pointing out that women are also often bullied and shamed and harassed so on because they're women. To me when, when someone like Leigh lashes out its because there's this lifetime of built up anger over being told she doesn't belong, etc. And then gamers lash out at her lashing out because THEY have a lifetime of built up anger about all the times THEY were picked on or don't belong. It's a vicious cycle. I really feel Leigh did not help her cause with all that fire and brimstone but I understand where she's coming from, just like I understand where the above post is coming from. We all need to chill the hell out. We're all parts of one community when it comes down to it.

/kumbaya...

 

[marrec]

I see alot of self loathing here.

i've been through the bullying stages of life when younger, not being popular, being a gamer instead of a jock. Parents thinking me and my friends were doing evil things. Few times standing up for who i was and not putting up with the bullshit of insults and getting beaten down for it. Ever been chased down a street and pulled off your bike and beaten up by kids on the side of the road while traffic just kept passing by? Why? Because of my identity. You can insert different identities there and i can't see how any of them deserve that type of ridicule. And hey guess what, it did leave mental scarring among other thats that happened in my youth, something Leigh casually points as a stereotype to be mocked. Wait wait wait, i know, its ME taking it the wrong way.

Not everyone that goes through the bullying and insults of being a social outcast turn out to be bad people but you would think with a bunch of supposed progressives they would show a bit more empathy to people with possible social disorders. Nope instead lets again put people who choose to identify as gamers through bullying, shaming and insulting ringer all over again. And why?

Glad to see people making those choices for the rest of us, especially those that admit they already held a bias against a term to begin with. Perhaps, maybe, just maybe thats why its so easy for you to disassociate from it to begin with and not understand why others are pretty peed off by it?

Go through all the mental gymnastics you want to make yourself feel good about what you are supporting. I understand what some are trying to fight for, that doesn't mean you have to blindly support the tactics being used to get to your agenda. i'm very familiar with the different levels of bullying and shaming, not all of them are obvious. When did it become acceptable to plug your ears, close your eyes and go lalala while a large group of people tell you what you are doing and saying is harmful, hurtful and insulting? You know how many times I was bullied as a kid only to hear "well you are just taking it wrong"

Lots of things to say about this post but I don't think I'll have the time until much later tonight so I'll try to be brief.

First I'd like to do something that I should have done at the very beginning of this discussion. I don't think people who play video games, gamers, are bad people. It should go without saying obviously, but since the narrative has shifted focus to this new gaming persecution I thought it should be said. I love gamers, and video games and anybody who is actively saying hateful and non-constructive things about Video Gaming or Gamers as a whole are harmful to any discussion. Especially involving where we as gamers can go from this new low in misogyny and gaming and how the two are intertwined.

With that out of the way. It's not through self-loathing that I am hesitant to sew a "GAMER!" patch on my Bag of Holding (you know, the one from Think Geek). It's out of a distaste for the origins of the term. I didn't realize it before this debate began but I don't tell people I'm a gamer. It's not a conscious choice but something that just doesn't come up. I read lots of books as well and don't tell people I'm a reader either. I do say "I'm a video game nerd" or "I'm a bit of a book worm" but the casual lexicographical self-identifiers that I use just happen to not include a hobby with '-er' at the end.

Like I said above. I've never been bullied for being a gamer. So while I can empathize with your experiences, I can't fully understand how they relate to the current poetical wax on how the identity of "gamer" has shifted into something new and exciting.

Of course... this is all rooted and goes back to an actual and real problem within the gaming community, that is misogyny and sexism. These things exist in vocal and unrepressed numbers on certain community portals and it's always been acknowledged. 4chan, for example, harbors a minority of bad people. It's not moderated and has, through it's rebel-website reputation, actively encouraged people to engage in racial and sexist discussion. Of course the majority of people visiting are great and decent... but some aren't and it's a large some. Even a website as carefully moderated and cultivated as NeoGAF has to deal with the constant influx of misogynist members. Is gaming more infected with this than other forms of media? It's hard to say... I'm not involved with the enthusiast movie community.

The point is that the bad apples came to the surface in the last two weeks with the ridiculous and disgusting Zeo Quinn attacks and journalists responded in kind... which I'm okay with. I want the people who decided to say "5 Guys" without a shred of self-awareness to feel persecuted. They're part of the problem.

I'm really sorry that the narrative has shifted though, as often happens when these things reach Twitter.

 

[Riposte]

I've already stated this, but the problem with creating such a limiting (if not unrealistic) definition for "gamer", you are undermining the whole idea that they ever had that much influence to lose. If your definition of "gamer" is limited enough, then there has never been a time in videogame history where they had much effect on what games were successful or could be made.

 

[Shinta]

Why is it bizarre, and why do people care if others identify themselves with their hobby?

I think those are perfectly valid questions.

The answers are that they are concerned with social acceptance; too concerned, if they are trying to dictate widespread adoption of their own views instead of just worrying about themselves. It's basically just concern with outward appearance.

I'll never forget Polygon when they launched their site and did the Press Reset stuff. Justin McElroy was saying then that he goes out and is ashamed to call himself a game's journalist, solely because it is involved with games.

That really sums it all up, and ties in very well with the points made MHWilliams about conformity, and location on the last page. San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York in particular are pretty image conscious cities compared to a lot of the US. It's a small, largely homogenous group of people, in cosmopolitan cities trying to gain credibility and social status and acceptance (in cities where this is especially valued and coveted) by basically putting other people down and dictating what labels are acceptable to use. Look at the painstaking attention to clothing choice in the Press Reset series and you can see why Leigh Alexander puts down people for how they dress. They literally just want to be seen as cool and sophisticated so they are bullying people to gain acceptance into the "cool club," much like how bullying happens at school, ironically.

It's a big cultural disconnent that you wouldn't see if game journalism was more ethnically, politically, sexually, and especially regionally diverse to reflect the diversity of gamers. Gamers themselves are actually infinitely more diverse than games journalists.

 

[MHWilliams]

These are some really good points. And it's no wonder that people constantly jump from the press to the other side. Who can raise a family or even live in those places in a profession that doesn't pay? I'm guessing many hit an age or situation where they are on their own or need to support others and can no longer live on a games writer's salary.

There are also less and less outlets. The highest places you can go for advancement is industry job and EIC, and there are only so many heads when there is so much consolidation.

This is pretty much the case. Journalists either jump into the industry directly or out of the industry entirely. On the former part, it's because those positions can pay more and there's more job security. For example, here's a position at Riot Games for a brand journalist. If you're a journalist who happens to love the hell out of League of Legends, that's probably a better position than working for an outlet. Probably better pay, benefits, and Riot Games isn't going anywhere anytime soon so there's job security. There's a certain sense of impropriety if you saw a journalist from IGN or something moving over to that position, but it's usually just a case of a journalist being a good fit for the job: they have the experience, the passion for the game, all of their work is easy to look up, and those doing the hiring have probably already met them.

People hop because they love the industry, they have experience within it, and because they need to provide for their families. That's not to say some may stay journalists forever, it's entirely possible. But by and large, not everyone is a mega-journalist like Walt Mossberg or David Greenwalt; they'll be journalists for as long as passion trumps survival. You can either fix that by having a super-successful spouse, or remaining fine with a certain standard of living.

Others jump because their love of the industry leads them to create: Greg Kasavin and Tom Francis come to mind. They'll generally be as successful as any other indie, but with a creative eye honed by playing hundreds of good/bad games and having to articulate why they're good and bad. I certainly couldn't hack it because the indie life is too hard. Too many long hours for the hope of success.

For those who leave the journalism entirely, it's because the pay or creative chances are better elsewhere. I've been offered double my current pay to go work for medical magazines. (This is true within the industry as well; many developers could make more money for less hours in other fields.) Kieron Gillen famously made the jump to comics and Gary Whitta is writing films.

Basically, if you're a games journalist, it's because you really love writing about games.

 

[Holykael1]

These people trying to control vocabulary and distorting the meaning of words are really irritating. If only they weren't so self centered as to try and impose their standards onto others.
I don't personally use the label "gamer" because it sounds lame but I will defend whoever wants to use it. It's very simple, it means person who plays games. I may not say "I am a gamer" but I definitely fit the definition of said word. It does not imply that the person defines themselves exclusively by the medium they consume either.
Fuck this "anti-gamer" narrative, it's embarrassing. There are definitely toxic people involved in the hobby, shocking news!!!! they are everywhere, being an idiot is a global scale phenomena, they will always exist, trying to kill a word because some idiots happen to be "gamers" is ridiculous. They are also human, so you know. Humans are over.

I have nothing but contempt towards these people who are obsessed over "social status" and similar meaningless trite.

 

[Mononoke]

I think those are perfectly valid questions.

The answers are that they are concerned with social acceptance; too concerned, if they are trying to dictate widespread adoption of their own views instead of just worrying about themselves. It's basically just concern with outward appearance.

I'll never forget Polygon when they launched their site and did the Press Reset stuff. Justin McElroy was saying then that he goes out and is ashamed to call himself a game's journalist, solely because it is involved with games.

That really sums it all up, and ties in very well with the points made MHWilliams about conformity, and location on the last page. San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York in particular are pretty image conscious cities compared to a lot of the US. It's a small, largely homogenous group of people, in cosmopolitan cities trying to gain credibility and social status and acceptance (in cities where this is especially valued and coveted) by basically putting other people down and dictating what labels are acceptable to use. Look at the painstaking attention to clothing choice in the Press Reset series and you can see why Leigh Alexander puts down people for how they dress. They literally just want to be seen as cool and sophisticated so they are bullying people to gain acceptance into the "cool club," much like how bullying happens at school, ironically.

It's a big cultural disconnent that you wouldn't see if game journalism was more ethnically, politically, sexually, and especially regionally diverse to reflect the diversity of gamers. Gamers themselves are actually infinitely more diverse than games journalists.

I understand the negative effects of identifying with a sub-culture, or labels existing (and people trying to adhere to it, or setting limits for other people). I agree that any sub-culture should be flexible and allow for anyone to participate if they so want to. It should be open to anyone to identify themselves as that (I don't think there should be a standard for these sort of things).

I guess I'm just saying in principle, I don't see why people care if someone identifies themselves with a culture. I have no issue with criticizing this when there are negative effects. But this idea that the label has to go completely, or all people that identify with a culture are bizarre or wrong, I just don't agree. Instead of saying "death to the gamer label", we should be saying that "gamer" as a label, should be something that evolves and is flexible. That it should be something that anyone cant identify themselves as w/out having to have specific qualities to fit that identification. That we shouldn't be the ones to decide who is and isn't a gamer, that's something only an individual can decide for themselves.

 

[Phades]

It's a big cultural disconnent that you wouldn't see if game journalism was more ethnically, politically, sexually, and especially regionally diverse to reflect the diversity of gamers. Gamers themselves are actually infinitely more diverse than games journalists.

I agree that there is a large cultural disconnect in that style of setting/environment, especially in terms of self awareness and overal maturity as a result. I don't think that it would change much, if at all in this specific instance, if it were more diverse as you propose. Hollywood and the outlets connected to it, are pretty diverse in some aspects, but not all and are among the worst examples of disconnect especially when viewed against the common person and not entirely different from politicians in that regard. This doesn't even begin to address the tabloid outlets loosely affiliated with that "culture" and "lifestyle".

 

[bishopcruz]

notions about Adam Baldwin's views as crap, or the 4chan hashtag you were digging?



your boy Baldwin does champion that cause. to answer your question: not familiar with those people & their views, so a decisive "maybe"



that's one take, another is that 4chan found a neat way to continue demonizing feminists/etc as evil SJW's because a few folks like Leigh Alexander opened the door to shit on the term "gamer", so that's where the goalposts are now. kinda glad to only be loosely following this mess at this point, wasn't really expecting the actual cause advanced much but there's been some genuine ugliness about & i'm grateful for missing as much of it as i could.

First, Baldwin hasn't been "my boy" for years, went fairly insane from, relatively normal conservative leaning libertarian to hard core conservative or at least made it ovious, at least in his tweets a long time back, hell, I've mentioned this to you personally.

Or speaking of 4chan as a hivemind much like we swear GAF isn't. Place is the friggen wild west, and supposedly has a fairly large lgbt population as well. I don't know much about 4chan as a board, I don't hang there, and neither do you, so all I generally see are the headlines, and I honestly don't see the demonization you are talking about. As far as the hashtag itself goes, looking on since it launched haven't seen all that much ugliness overall, the stuff that is there is mainly coming from the other side.

fun ones like these:

GoT Thinkpiece ‏@Camera_Angel 8m
#notyourshield is just women against feminism who are evidently ok with immersing themselves in a context where they get shat on. ignore.

video dante @videodante · 13h
and if you can't see why that hashtag is inherently antiqueer, antiPOC, antiwoman, w/e, I pity you

if you're a marginalized person and you're tweeting #notyourshield, you are definitely #complicitwithyourownoppression and i pity you

On the bright side, haven't noticed any journos or devs coming on to shit on the party. And even those above tweets don't touch the level of vitriol in #gamergate proper, which is refreshing at the very least.

 

[Shinta]

I guess I'm just saying in principle, I don't see why people care if someone identifies themselves with a culture.

Because they think it makes them look bad.

The thing is though, they don't own the culture and they don't get to tell anyone else who gets to be a part of it. They should instead just worry about their own lives and call themselves what they want.

It honestly shows a deep-seeded insecurity to be that obsessed with social acceptance that you would justify demonizing and bullying people so that you can look cooler. It's not an accident that Alexander herself said in 2012 in an interview that she was "lonely" and "played games in her basement" as a kid.

That wasn't the case for me, so maybe that's why I don't feel the need to dictate what everyone can do to try to boost my fragile ego and distance myself from a past life as a nerd.

 

[unbias]

Of course... this is all rooted and goes back to an actual and real problem within the gaming community, that is misogyny and sexism.

I dont know. What all this showed me is, that if you dont fit into teh social circle of a group(any group), you will get hate sent at you for not thinking like the other group(be it sexist, misogyny, bullying, racism, political, beliefs, and ect). I see plenty of people being as insulting as humanly possible, without overtly saying something like "I hate you and your stances" or "you are a mental patient who needs help", and I'm not seeing any correlation to it being about a specific subject more then it is people being incredibly spiteful and bitter, and lashing out.

I'm not even going to go with the whole cliche "there is bad people in all sides", no, there is just bad people and they cloak themselves in whatever group they can, to demonize, insult, or ridicule another group of people they dont like. Because if this was all about trying to get people to be accepting? All of it would be called out and not just by the people you agree with, and people wouldn't be trying to just have the bullies, or the sexists, or the racists, or ect called out.

But hey, let's all pretend that the problem is a very specific issue of a certain subset of a certain culture, that way we can pretend that there are not some pretty spiteful and bitter people using all sorts of things to unleash their issues onto the general public. For all the claim of empathy and all that, I see very little actual empathy to try and foster some understanding of actual issues. I see a lot of "my level, got on it". Like the saying goes, "Death to normal, long live normal!".

 

[Mononoke]

Because they think it makes them look bad.

The thing is though, they don't own the culture and they don't get to tell anyone else who gets to be a part of it. They should instead just worry about their own lives and call themselves what they want.

It honestly shows a deep-seeded insecurity to be that obsessed with social acceptance that you would justify demonizing and bullying people so that you can look cooler.

So, that's on them if they have hang ups about it making them look bad. Don't push that on everyone else, just because they are insecure about the perception of that label. And, I don't even think have to identify themselves as a gamer if they don't want to. I think it's 100% up to the individual. If you don't want to label yourself as such, don't.

 

[SenorArdilla]

How much vitriol did Nintendo get for making those "Not a Gamer" commercials 2 years back?

 

[Shinta]

So, that's on them if they have hang ups about it making them look bad. Don't push that on everyone else, just because they are insecure about the perception of that label.

Exactly.

I think Justin McElroy literally once apologized for being rude to people by saying "Sorry, I was fat and bullied as a kid."

The projection is so blatant.

 

[Gsak]

It's quite simple really:

Not all journalists/devs are corrupt. That doesn't mean that corruption within the industry is a "fantasy".

Not all gamers are "white cis, privileged males" who send death threats and are horrible persons in general. That doesn't mean such persons do not exist.

So let's all (men, women, LGBT) do each other a favor and learn to aim our accusations and finger-pointing where they need to be aimed, without resorting to strawmen and blanket statements.

And let's all learn to be skeptical and look deeply into matters, before accepting/refusing something as truth/fact. "Benefit of a doubt" goes both ways.

 

[Mumei]

Of course. It's a big problem and one that stems from a few issues:

- Journalism as a whole is a middle-to-upper-middle career. (Not in salary.) When you're starting out you need to have a solid support structure, because you're not making any money. My first two years doing news for GI.biz were for free or very, very low-pay. This worked because I had a full-time job, I did the news stuff on the side. That's not a situation that's available for many. This tends to work against poor people, meaning is disproportionally effects minorities.

- Hiring in the games industry - like most industries - tends to be based on culture or visibility. In the culture column, it's well noted that businesses hire those who share their views or cultural makeup. This can lead to racist or sexist situations without intention. A management team of white male nerds are more likely to hire the same. Visibility can trump that aspect - people will go with an Ezra Klein over their friend - but visibility tends to come from existing outlets. So you have the same pool of people shuffling from site-to-site. Hiring outside of those issues requires a concerted effort to do so and most outlets don't do that. It is getting better - Polygon improved outside of its first hire, Nerdist picked up Malik, Kotaku is generally pretty good - but there's still major room for improvement.

- Regional issues. Most major outlets require you to work from an office. These office are generally where the developers are: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. Those places aren't cheap to live and starting salaries for game journalists don't cover much in the way of rent. See point 1 again.

- Just starting out. Perception fuels what we do. Wants more minority or female writers? Show more minority or female writers. That shows the next generation that its a possible path of success, see: the NBA, the NFL, and music industries. Show the success and younger people will emulate that, meaning they're working on their craft from a early age. It's better for a journalist to start in high school or college, when working for free/near-free isn't to a detriment.

I'm lucky in that I can work from a home office and my girlfriend is a programmer (for mobile apps not games) so she makes far more money than I do. That's actually rather normal for many of us: we have significant others that pick up the slack.

I'm at USgamer based on my news and feature work at GI.biz. Meaning I'm at USgamer because they knew me and my work, which only happened because I could work for cheap.

Great post, as usual.

There was a article not long ago in Prospect which makes some of the same points, and criticized the failure of liberal media to live up to their own standards in diversity hiring in their own staffs and their failure to pay their interns and entry-level staff livable wages. Gabriel Arana explains why this is the case, and how it can be addressed at an institutional level:

But the primary reason magazine staffs are so white is structural. "We practice fairly specialized form of journalism and the pool of people who do it isn’t terribly large to begin with, and then you look at the group of people who are practicing at a higher level and it’s just not a diverse pool," Foer says.

The road that ends with a spot on staff at places like The New Republic, The Atlantic, or the Prospect is paved with privilege. It starts with unpaid internships, which serve both as training grounds and feeders to staff positions.

"Most of our staff comes through our intern program," says Harper's editor Ellen Rosenbush. "Do we get as many applicants of color as we’d like? Probably not, but we do get them and we have hired them." There's a straightforward reason for the dearth of intern applications: Those who can afford to rely on mom and dad for a summer or a semester tend to be well-off and white.

[…]

If magazines want to make their staffs more inclusive, it requires more than good intentions and a broad commitment to diversity. "To use the 12-step language, first you have to name the problem," says Monika Bauerlein, co-editor of Mother Jones, which has improved diversity in the past several years through concerted recruiting efforts, yielding 12.5 percent of its 40-person staff who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups. "Diversity is something that we emphasize in every posting and that we look to as an important part in the candidates that we talk to."

So what happens if you stress diversity and still end up with an applicant pool that is almost exclusively white? "If you care about a diverse newsroom, you need to constantly be looking down the pipeline," says Ann Friedman, former deputy editor at the Prospect. "It requires you to be actively looking for new staff members, not just perusing the résumés that roll in." That means looking outside one's existing social network and actively asking minorities to apply. When the pool of applicants for the Prospect's writing fellowship was male and nearly entirely white, Friedman says she turned to the blogosphere, which is where the magazine found talented writers like Adam Serwer and Jamelle Bouie. "There are all sorts of nonwhite, nonmale writers all over the Internet," Friedman says.

Besides scouring the Internet, magazines can also increase the number of people of color who apply for fellowships and positions by reaching out to journalism departments at historically black colleges and Latino-serving institutions as well as professional organizations like the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Asian American Journalists Association. But the work doesn't stop there. "Even after you find someone you think will be a good fit in your newsroom, if your newsroom is mostly white and male and straight, you'll probably have to convince them they'll be welcome," Friedman says.

But cultivating diversity also means thinking differently about a candidate's qualifications. Because the barriers for entry into journalism are higher for members of racial and ethnic minorities than for other groups, they often come to the process with less journalism experience than their white counterparts.

"The pitfall many managers fall into is thinking that the most qualified candidate is the one with the most experience," says Buzzfeed deputy editor Shani Hilton, who has written about newsroom diversity, and is African American. "But experience isn't the only metric. We're hiring for a mosaic of reasons—it’s not just your clips, but also how you are in newsroom, who recognizes you and also how good you are at Twitter and on the Internet." Recruiting and investing in minorities at the entry level—including intern positions—is crucial if the industry hopes to make progress down the line; today's interns are tomorrow's editors.

What Arana is describing in that excerpt are processes that can be taken to open up hiring to minorities, by ameliorating some of the barriers to entry that particularly affect potential minority candidates, which is essentially a lighter form of affirmative action. I'm hardly an expert in the workings of gaming media, but I don't suppose I'd be going too far out on a limb to say that this would also be good advice for them.

 

[Nanashrew]

Just because you may have had your head buried in the sand doesn't mean the rest of us have. Some of us are active pro-civil rights activists. Some of us spend our weekends marching in demonstrations. Some of us donate fairly large sums, given their meager paycheck, to causes worth fighting for. And a lot of us spend heaping helpings of what spare time we DO have arguing with racist, sexist, homophobic assholes on the internet. Those of us do these things, you can understand, may not appreciate having a term that has been a part of our personal identity for a decade or more of our lives dragged through the god damned mud because some asshole wants to make a point and holds a position in aprofession that allows them to create a narrative that others follow.

Fuck that.

I'm a gamer, and I'm willing to bet I've done more good in my life than half the people who would give me shit for saying that.

And I completely respect that. You're one of the few active ones willing to fight for inclusiveness with everything you've got. My post never meant to knock down the good people like yourself. I've spent a good majority fighting against racists, misogynists, homophobic people myself and I'll continue to do so.

I also understand not wanting something muddied. I've just come to different terms that I'm not defined or ruled by any one specific label. That doesn't stop me from enjoying games or engaging in discussion like I am now. I have plenty to discuss and I still make plenty of rants on my twitter feed on the industry fairly frequently. I probably rant too much because now people are wanting me to start a blog or a tumblr.

 

[Metalingus5150]

Drama in the video games industry is funny.