Support NeoGAF

[ibyea]

This is an extraordinarily uncharitable and basically absurd reading. Leigh Alexander has worked in gaming for years. She wrote a whole book about the ways that computers and video games influenced her childhood. She has little interactive fiction games she's created on her website.

For all this, she's spent years being regularly trashed on game sites across the internet -- attacked for being pushy, or stupid, or uppity, regularly cited as an "annoying" person or someone who wants to "ruin" gaming -- or simply people who assert, as you have, that she isn't part of the community at all. The doubt and questioning that kicks off her piece is prefaced by exactly these years of being excluded (and seeing others excluded in the same way) from gaming because of her gender.



It is one thing, yes.

Wow, I didn't realize she was writing all that from this context.

 

[unbias]

This is an extraordinarily uncharitable and basically absurd reading. Leigh Alexander has worked in gaming for years. She wrote a whole book about the ways that computers and video games influenced her childhood. She has little interactive fiction games she's created on her website.

For all this, she's spent years being regularly trashed on game sites across the internet -- attacked for being pushy, or stupid, or uppity, regularly cited as an "annoying" person or someone who wants to "ruin" gaming -- or simply people who assert, as you have, that she isn't part of the community at all. The doubt and questioning that kicks off her piece is prefaced by exactly these years of being excluded (and seeing others excluded in the same way) from gaming because of her gender.



It is one thing, yes.

See, and I think this is part of the problem. Lot of people had no fucking clue who she was, no context was given. Then with the twitter version of kick the can down the road, and combine it with twitter Chinese whispers and you got a fucking explosion, with all the tinder from the previous events.

 

[antigoon]

That Bill Maher bit was pretty gross. I thought he only hated Muslims!

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

See, and I think this is part of the problem. Lot of people had no fucking clue who she was

From what I've read of Leigh Alexander I think this may be the thing she finds most offensive.

 

[ibyea]

From what I've read of Leigh Alexander I think this may be the thing she finds most offensive.

Irrelevant ad hominem.

 

[alstein]

This is an extraordinarily uncharitable and basically absurd reading. Leigh Alexander has worked in gaming for years. She wrote a whole book about the ways that computers and video games influenced her childhood. She has little interactive fiction games she's created on her website.

For all this, she's spent years being regularly trashed on game sites across the internet -- attacked for being pushy, or stupid, or uppity, regularly cited as an "annoying" person or someone who wants to "ruin" gaming -- or simply people who assert, as you have, that she isn't part of the community at all. The doubt and questioning that kicks off her piece is prefaced by exactly these years of being excluded (and seeing others excluded in the same way) from gaming because of her gender.



It is one thing, yes.

Is she being excluded for being a woman, or for being a troll?

Quite honestly, I've lost a lot of respect for her writing recently , in terms of its quality. I'd argue that while she is nowhere in the same league as bad as those assholes doing threats , her "gamers are dead" piece was something that if it didn't have her name attached to it- would be regarded as nothing more than a random troll.

I have seen a couple of folks on my Twitter feed do some real hate towards gamers in general, not separating the 95%+ of normal decent folks from the 5% or less of people who do fit that description. It's aggravating because they're normally sane folks, but they've been inflammed by the trollish clickbait. I won't say I'm innocent of this, I know this has happened to me in the past, particularly on economic justice issues.

The big thing Gamergate has done for me is it has really made me rethink hiveminding and how vulnerable I am myself to it, but I feel like some is still necessary, because you do have to have some core hard beliefs to be moral.

I just don't agree with the black and white morality that has been pushed by many over here, and I view Leigh Alexander as particularly and especially guilty of this on this issue.

 

[Blackthorn]

He's not asserting that she's not part of the community. He's asserting, if I understand him properly, that in her article she does not present herself as belonging to the community of "gamers" that the article attacks. When she says gamers are mushroom-headed manchildren who need to change their misogynistic ways she's not saying "we gamers are mushroom-headed manchildren and we need to change." She's saying "you gamers are mushroom-headed manchildren and you need to change."

The entire article is an attempt to create novel definitions of "gamer" and "gaming culture" that specifically exclude her so that she can attack them from the outside. And yes, it's in part as a response to a prevailing definition of "gamer" that she feels tacitly or de facto excludes her, but that doesn't make the article any less inflammatory.

I read it an attack on a marketing demographic proliferated by the old guard of the industry that is becoming increasingly irrelevant and stagnant, along with the consumers who bought into that identity wholesale.

And while those gamers may be a minority, it would be naive to think they're a small group, as you can discover by attending game conventions or launches.

 

[APF]

See, and I think this is part of the problem. Lot of people had no fucking clue who she was, no context was given.

Which I find bizarre because if you actually are interested in gaming journalism, she's been a key figure for a few years now. There's a reason she gets to just drop an article in Time.

 

[charlequin]

There are a multitude of ways to diffuse the situation and her thesis could've been presented in a way that wasn't accusatory, instead her and the gaming press chose the equivalent of a "show of force".

So you know that her article was predicated by violent threats, torrents of harassment, and other efforts to drive women out of the hobby, and you're still going to say that the real problem is that Alexander wasn't polite enough in writing about the people doing that harassing?

From what I've read of Leigh Alexander I think this may be the thing she finds most offensive.

This is... pretty much a textbook example of my post about how people have treated Alexander in this industry? I mean, you are actively proving my point here.

 

[zeldablue]

Is she being excluded for being a woman, or for being a troll?

Quite honestly, I've lost a lot of respect for her writing recently , in terms of its quality. I'd argue that while she is nowhere in the same league as bad as those assholes doing threats , her "gamers are dead" piece was something that if it didn't have her name attached to it- would be regarded as nothing more than a random troll.

I have seen a couple of folks on my Twitter feed do some real hate towards gamers in general, not separating the 95%+ of normal decent folks from the 5% or less of people who do fit that description. It's aggravating because they're normally sane folks, but they've been inflammed by the trollish clickbait. I won't say I'm innocent of this, I know this has happened to me in the past, particularly on economic justice issues.

The big thing Gamergate has done for me is it has really made me rethink hiveminding and how vulnerable I am myself to it, but I feel like some is still necessary, because you do have to have some core hard beliefs to be moral.

I just don't agree with the black and white morality that has been pushed by many over here, and I view Leigh Alexander as particularly and especially guilty of this on this issue.

There is a certain feeling you get when you walk into a room of all male gamers. You feel very judgmental eyes looking at you. They could be either real stares or your own paranoia. There is always the fear that you are being judged the moment you walk into the room. People might think you're a distraction, they might think you are asking for attention just by being there, they might see you as uppity because you're not interested in sexual advances. There could be a lot of bad assumptions and paranoia and projection going on. They might project harmful stereotypes on her and then wait to see those stereotypes come true. A lot of sexist attitudes come from the idea that women are here for men. So when a girl walks in, it can be offensive for men who just want to have a fun time with other guys in the room. It can be offensive to people who don't want to be "distracted." This is where the attention seeking projection comes from. These are the dangerous sexist attitudes that should be talked about. It's like living in the 50's in some of these environments. Just watch Anchorman...

It's that kind of air that would probably drive me insane, I wouldn't want to feel judged when I walk somewhere.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

This is... pretty much a textbook example of my post about how people have treated Alexander in this industry? I mean, you are actively proving my point here.

Proving your point that she's not well-liked? Absolutely. If that's what your point is.

To clarify, I find the personal animus towards Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian and plenty of other women in gaming to be explicable only by misogyny. I do not feel the same way about Leigh Alexander.

 

[unbias]

Which I find bizarre because if you actually are interested in gaming journalism, she's been a key figure for a few years now. There's a reason she gets to just drop an article in Time.

Gamers also loved Beyond Good and Evil supposedly, and everyone loved Arrested Development and Firefly. People lie about how much they care, because they like to think they care more then they do.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Proving your point that she's not well-liked? Absolutely. If that's what your point is.

I'd be pretty happy to be hated by the type of people who seem to not like Leigh.

 

[flatearthpandas]

For all this, she's spent years being regularly trashed on game sites across the internet -- attacked for being pushy, or stupid, or uppity, regularly cited as an "annoying" person or someone who wants to "ruin" gaming -- or simply people who assert, as you have, that she isn't part of the community at all. The doubt and questioning that kicks off her piece is prefaced by exactly these years of being excluded (and seeing others excluded in the same way) from gaming because of her gender.

Another poster has explained my position correctly but I will reiterate. I am not asserting that she isn't part of the community. Her biography is not necessary to critique the article--in which she uses the very first sentence to specifically separate herself from the community, emphasizing her role as a journalist who reports on it. Then she goes on the attack.

And who does she attack? Bigots? No. She attacks people who stand in line at conventions. Why? Because they're stupid, standing there because the media told them to, and because they're socially awkward. Then she calls them bigots.

That is uncharitable.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I'd be pretty happy to be hated by the type of people who seem to not like Leigh.

What type of person am I, do you think?

 

[JesseEwiak]

What type of person am I, do you think?

Judging from this thread, a smart guy who has a massive blind spot what it comes to this issue. If you actually don't like Leigh Alexander because she might've been a little hyperbolic in an article, I don't know what to tell you.

But then again, I'm a wrestling fan. I've been called a toothless redneck in the media for literally my whole life. Doesn't affect me.

 

[unbias]

Judging from this thread, a smart guy who has a massive blind spot what it comes to this issue. If you actually don't like Leigh Alexander because she might've been a little hyperbolic in an article, I don't know what to tell you.

But then again, I'm a wrestling fan. I've been called a toothless redneck in the media for literally my whole life. Doesn't affect me.

Hahaha, as someone who used to be a huge WCW fan, I can relate.

 

[Lowlander2]

To clarify, I find the personal animus towards Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian and plenty of other women in gaming to be explicable only by misogyny. I do not feel the same way about Leigh Alexander.

Really now? Because although I find the fact that Leigh Alexander still has a job to be one of the great modern myths, I'm going to bet most people who hate her aren't getting their Bachelor of Arts tomorrow and thus do not understand precisely what she's done wrong and are just opting to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Judging from this thread, a smart guy who has a massive blind spot what it comes to this issue. If you actually don't like Leigh Alexander because she might've been a little hyperbolic in an article, I don't know what to tell you.

But then again, I'm a wrestling fan. I've been called a toothless redneck in the media for literally my whole life. Doesn't affect me.

The problem with her article isn't the hyperbole. It's the fact that she's attacking people for their identity rather than for their actions or beliefs - indeed, she is explicitly gerrymandering their identity so as to impute beliefs upon them that they may not hold. And she also assigns them various irrelevant negative stereotypes that she attacks too, for good measure!

And my problem with Leigh Alexander isn't confined to this article. Maybe she's a lovely person to her friends, but all I see is her public persona, and that's the public persona that narcissistically raged that she was a better writer than any of the guys at Giant Bomb and writes clearly autobiographical fiction seething with contempt for her colleagues.

Really now? Because although I find the fact that Leigh Alexander still has a job to be one of the great modern myths, I'm going to bet most people who hate her aren't getting their Bachelor of Arts tomorrow and thus do not understand precisely what she's done wrong and are just opting to jump on the bandwagon.

I don't know where most of the antipathy towards Leigh Alexander comes from. Maybe most of it comes from misogyny. I do know where my antipathy towards her comes from, though.

 

[APF]

Her biography is not necessary to critique the article--in which she uses the very first sentence to specifically separate herself from the community

Is this the sentence you mean: "I often say I’m a video game culture writer, but lately I don’t know exactly what that means."

That seems different than what you're suggesting.

 

[alstein]

There is a certain feeling you get when you walk into a room of all male gamers. You feel very judgmental eyes looking at you. They could be either real stares or your own paranoia. There is always the fear that you are being judged the moment you walk into the room. People might think you're a distraction, they might think you are asking for attention just by being there, they might see you as uppity because you're not interested in sexual advances. There could be a lot of bad assumptions and paranoia and projection going on. They might project harmful stereotypes on her and then wait to see those stereotypes come true. A lot of sexist attitudes come from the idea that women are here for men. So when a girl walks in, it can be offensive for men who just want to have a fun time with other guys in the room. It can be offensive to people who don't want to be "distracted." This is where the attention seeking projection comes from. These are the dangerous sexist attitudes that should be talked about. It's like living in the 50's in some of these environments. Just watch Anchorman...

It's that kind of air that would probably drive me insane, I wouldn't want to feel judged when I walk somewhere.

That's a very fair statement, and one I wished wasn't true. I don't know what it's like. That said, I don't understand it from the other side, because I don't think I've ever thought that way myself. The closest I have ever come was entering a KOF tourney once where I was like the only American person there, everyone else was Mexican or Asian. And that was minor.

That said, she was trolling in my eyes with the "gamers are dead" article.

BTW personal animus towards Zoe Quinn is also legit- considering some of her actions in the past, completely unrelated to the recent scandal. I had a low opinion of her based on her attacks on others beforehand. That said, my low opinion of her does not mean in any way I justify some of the horrific treatment she has received from misogynist trolls.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Is this the sentence you mean: "I often say I’m a video game culture writer, but lately I don’t know exactly what that means."

That seems different than what you're suggesting.

Here are various examples of her drawing a distinction between herself and gamers/game culture in her article:

I often say I’m a video game culture writer, but lately I don’t know exactly what that means. ‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet.

My job is games culture writer, but games culture is an embarrassment to me. It consists of doing things that I do not do.

It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there.

Games culture is comprised of socially-stunted idiots, unlike me.

‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.

Gamers harass people on the internet and cause serious harm, unlike me.

Lately, I often find myself wondering what I’m even doing here. And I know I’m not alone.

Why am I even here with all you lowlives? I'm not like you.

All of us should be better than this.

This is the first and only time in the article that she even comes close to including herself among the gamers she's criticizing. The next passage switches back to the article's prevailing tone of second-person outsider hectoring:

You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this and this and this are the prominent public face your business presents to the rest of the world.

This continues for a while, and then transitions to her overblown declarations that a new sort of gamer is coming along to displace all the trash.

 

[CurlyW]

Man, remember gamers?

 

[flatearthpandas]

Is this the sentence you mean: "I often say I’m a video game culture writer, but lately I don’t know exactly what that means."

That seems different than what you're suggesting.

People want to close read the article. This is the first sentence. This is the only sentence in which she directly claims an identity in the article. That identity is as an outsider. Someone who reports on the community, not as a part of it.

With about two exceptions, all of her pronouns through the rest of the article support this. Your community. Those gamers. We journalists.

That is surface level.

 

[zeldablue]

"In psychology, racism, sexism and other prejudices are often studied as individual beliefs which, although not necessarily oppressive in themselves, can lead to oppression if they are codified in law or become parts of a culture. By comparison, in sociology, these prejudices are often studied as being institutionalized systems of oppression in some societies. In sociology, the tools of oppression include a progression of denigration, dehumanization, and demonization; which often generate scapegoating, which is used to justify aggression against targeted groups and individuals."

I think a lot of these "corrupt" ladies were trying to point out the parts of our culture that enforces strong gender bias. Even if you aren't "sexist" it doesn't stop our culture from being veeeery sexist. It's a frustrating situation to bring to light. And a lot of people who don't see themselves as sexist are quickly appalled to see this nasty hidden prejudice come to light in these game articles. It's so deeply ingrained in our culture, that it is literally impossible (whether you are a man or woman) to not be affected by it. In fact, I'd say gender bias is a big part of a gamer's identity. I think it's good to note, that since sexism is more a part of our culture than a part of any individual...it should never be taken personally.

That's a very fair statement, and one I wished wasn't true. I don't know what it's like. That said, I don't understand it from the other side, because I don't think I've ever thought that way myself. The closest I have ever come was entering a KOF tourney once where I was like the only American person there, everyone else was Mexican or Asian. And that was minor.

That said, she was trolling in my eyes with the "gamers are dead" article.

BTW personal animus towards Zoe Quinn is also legit- considering some of her actions in the past, completely unrelated to the recent scandal. I had a low opinion of her based on her attacks on others beforehand. That said, my low opinion of her does not mean in any way I justify some of the horrific treatment she has received from misogynist trolls.

I feel like I knew people in college who were a lot like Zoe. Not very good people. But they were all suffering from depression that made them really nasty and hard to be around. Looking in, they were loud and obnoxious attention-seekers. But now I know that's only the side that I was seeing. Kind of messed up and annoying when you think about it.

 

[APF]

My job is games culture writer, but games culture is an embarrassment to me. It consists of doing things that I do not do.

You're actually, literally twisting her words here. For example, where does she say she does not do these things? I mean, you're making the most bullshit possible argument in this post: you're literally making shit up and pulling shit from thin air. The same thing goes for all of the subsequent quotes you use here, and the snarky "interpretations" you make where you disingenuously add in "but not me" when it's actually nowhere to be found in the text. This is so intellectually dishonest I don't even know what you think you were trying to accomplish.

This is the first and only time in the article that she even comes close to including herself among the gamers she's criticizing.

So you are confirming she's saying she's a part of this thing she has been covering: "All of us." The key word being "us." Notice that here, at this point, she switches from her describing the group she's been within for years, suggests that lately things have changed (which she immediately gets to explaining), stops using "I" and stops using "us" and begins saying "you": "You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this and this and this are the prominent public face your business presents to the rest of the world." Now it's no longer about all of us, it's saying if this describes you, then you have some hard choices. And it goes on like that, saying if this describes you, you're actually a vocal minority in the sphere of people who play games, and are becoming irrelevant.

 

[Shingro]

I'm sure there's a multitude of reasons that Leigh acts the way she does, however I'm not sure how much I can say "Pain absolves a person responsibility of their actions."

I'm sure her road has been hard, maybe harder then most women in the industry even, however I can't speak to that and whatever those trials are they don't make her attitudes right or her behavior always excusable.

In my eyes that article was offensive at best. I've got a lot of LGBT friends and in many discussions I feel I've been educated *very thoroughly* on the importance of identity to an individual and how painful it can be for others to not respect it. Sure, I know, "gamer" probably doesn't impress anyone as much as someone's core gender.

Still, I think that it's still good manners to respect someone's identity,
I think it's incredibly bad manners to cast a blanket definition of someone else's identity.
I think it's downright rude and savage to degrade and insult someone's identity from a pulpit of any level of authority, even if that's just having a large audience.

Man or woman I don't particularly like people who do that. Yeah maybe you can put it under all sorts of technicalities of what she did and didn't outright say, but I only know how I read that article, lines and between the lines and all. You can't take someone's personal reaction to something away from them. That's as true for game reviews as it is for reading articles.

I think she crossed the line of good taste at minimum, much like every other writer who encouraged or wrote guides to or kill whatever fragment of identity people held. I don't think it makes her evil or anything, but I'm not honor bound to like her either. Personal view only.

 

[TheLight]

Sure. But the problem is the silent majority. The people who say they don't give a shit or who cares when these issues come up, or ignore them, or stay quiet as people sling slurs on voice chat. If all people can hear is the small violent minority because no one else is speaking up, don't be surprised if people come away with a poor impression.

That is literally why I said "it takes the percentage who is willing to enact the change." No one in this industry, unfortunately, is always going to recieve 100% positivity in their Twitter mentions or in the comments of their articles. Trolling should be greeted with nonchalance, in my opinion, and criticism welcomed.

Keep in mind, my opinion is all I am offering right now(and probably the only thing I can offer).

Unless there's an established good reason not to, this falls apart quickly. Assassin's Creed managed to include a woman, a black man, and a Native American man as main characters despite the series being established. Dragon Age Inquisition includes defined LGB characters despite it being established.

After AC1, the series became ROOTED in that variety. It was established as being culturally diverse. Yet people still found something to be upset about in terms of representation.

That is literally the reason that whole scenario was so ridiculous to me and many others. People cried about representation in "Assassin's Creed". A series with so many protagonists from different genders, races, and walks of life.

And yeah, the devs for DA: I are pretty dope for that, because no one had to come in and demand, sign petitions, and "aggressively request". It was of their own fruition. They are doing their thing and it's dope.

Sure, a diverse work force is slowly seeping in and will hopefully be capable of convincing publishers to let them do cool shit, and the ride of indies gives more avenues too. But given the coordinated, effective harassment campaign that drives women away from this industry, and the vitriol and abuse that gets hurled for making anything with diversity on it (want to know how many times I've seen people say they refuse to play a gay character? It's a lot more than you'd think), why would anyone want to?

Because they have the passion to do so? I can't speak to the personal reasons why someone would want to keep pushing and make a game they have pride in, but they are again personal reasons. These hypothetical situations make for interesting discussion, but are meaningless right now. With time publishers will open up and take more risks, and the times(believe it or not) are getting more and more tolerant. Indie devs are already waaaay ahead of mainstream gaming in terms of representation. It IS happening. A hashtag and a band of assholes aren't going to dismantle that, and you are giving them way too much credit if you think they are.

Again, a) the assholes who don't want to play as a gay character can just not play the game. Let them rot in their ignorance and let the industry grow and b) while playing as a fictional character made of polygons or pixels, their sexual orientation is utterly irrelevant. Everyone who played TLOU fully, unknowingly played as someone on the LGBT spectrum and guess what: it meant nothing. It was cool, but people still played the game and enjoyed it. Ellie not being as "straight" as people wanted to be, didn't change any of that.

There's that infamous imgur of companies to avoid who put out or support "SJW" games. Including that shit gets called an agenda, and it's forced down people's throats, and it's political, and can't they just make games? Given the abuse people suffer as creators in this industry, I sure as fuck have felt like it's not worth it to try and express my voice by making games, despite dreams otherwise.

It's fucked up, yeah. But nothing will ever be a smooth ride. Whether it be abuse from trolls, or obstacles in the industry or personal obstacles. That is an entirely different topic, but giving that much power to the verbal abuser is just as devastating to the industry and progress as the ones spitting vitriol and hate.

To me, it's always worth it. Having a dream and seeing it realized while walking straight thorough the fire just makes it more sweet when you make it.

OK, I'm going to respond to this as calmly and bluntly as I possibly can, and preface this by saying I am not attacking you personally.

Uh-huh.

This is a load of bullshit. I am so god damned tired of people telling me and other minorities that they should, in essence, shut the hell up. Because that's what you're doing, whether you realize it or not. You're equating criticism of and reaction to the under representation of minorities in media as shoving it down people's throats. That instead we should stop talking about it, stop getting upset, and let it run its course. That is the implication, intentional or not, to saying that bringing these issues up is not OK and that we have to let it act naturally.

I didn't tell you or anyone "in essence" to shut the hell up. You're putting what I'm saying under that umbrella. I'm not advocating a minority shutting their mouths, I am advocating a minority funding(by purchasing and supporting) and even making the shit they like and want. That includes representation.

Example: People call rap misogynistic because it usually caters to men and the opinions of the aritst. It originated with men and since then has always been dominated by men. Disappointing because the world doesn't just include men, right? So what do we need? Probably more female rappers rapping from female points of view! And if you look closely, we are starting to get just that. Now we just need to move rap closer to being a non-black thing, and it is heading there too! It's not a hard or a dismissive concept. The people who want representation should fund and create things that have the representation they seek. This argument is not new or far fetched but is always regarded as dismissive. It's not!

Expecting something from people who don't give a shit about what you want is always going to yield you ZERO. It's okay to be mad, because anger can be productive. In this case, that anger at being ignored can be yielded into something great: the exact representation you seek. Instead it is victimizing and demanding representation from people who don't care about what you want.

The act of bringing an issue up, is encouraged too. Criticisms? They are WONDERFUL. Demanding and "requesting" and petitioning? Not the way, in my opinion.

I need you to stop and reflect for a moment on how equality has ever happened. It was not by people sitting back and making it a natural process. It was by arguing, yelling, marching, taking to the streets so that not only were they acknowledged they made people listen. By not giving a shit that it made people feel uncomfortable. That was true for women's suffrage, it was true for the civil rights movement, it was true for the gay rights movement.

Going to have to stop you there. You are blowing this way out of proportion. Comparing a video game character not looking like you to people marching, dying, and bleeding for a cause much more than them is bullshit. All of the movements you listed included people being crippled of their rights or in some cases being physically attacked. None of your rights are crippled from this and you aren't being hurt from bigshootguy from bigshootgun 2 not looking like you. The fact that most protagonists don't is an issue, but you don't need to bloat this issue up like that.

Telling minorities the equivalent of "stop being so uppity, you're making everyone unhappy" is just not cool, and I'm so fucking sick of being told what I can say and how I'm allowed to say it when I want to talk about issues that matter and affect me. Why should I, after years and years of feeling isolated in my hobby and made to feel unwelcome through harassment or invisible because no one talked about these issues, let people's unease at me being included or talking about same (and yeah, that happens all too often, even here) stop me from talking about it because they feel forced to acknowledge there is an issue? I've been told "who cares?" too many god damned times to suddenly think that sitting down and shutting up and twiddling my thumbs waiting for things to happen naturally will do anything.

This part confused me so I'm just going to say: yes.

Maybe you're going to say of course you didn't mean to say don't talk about it, just don't force it. But given I've seen any request or discussion for diversity met with ire, dismissal, revulsion, I don't think that whatever arbitrary line that is crossed from request to demand, discussion to yelling, matters to those opposed because they're opposed regardless. And being quiet lets them ignore us, ignore the problem, and maintain the status quo. And honestly, after seeing so much apathy and push back and rejection to the very fucking notion of including characters like me in a game, I don't really give a shit if talking about it and voicing my frustration and upset at being ignored makes people feel uncomfortable or that I'm forcing it down their throats, because it's my god damn hobby too, and I deserve to have a voice in it and about it.

At this point it doesn't even feel like you're talking to me. It feels more like you're venting.

If this hobby really is ours, why don't we act like it? Taking ownership of a hobby falls in line with the power of the consumer. We are quick to disown it and the people in it when shit gets bad, but own and deserve it when we want something from it. Our main contribution to the industry right now, is capital. It's our money buying games. Our contribution doesn't include philosophy and/or ideology. That is an issue for the developers and to a minor extent, gaming journalists. If anything, we have to admit that they have influence. It's the reason why this Quinnspiracy nonsense, true or not, is so huge. You can have your voice, your criticisms, all of it, but you shouldn't have expectations. Representation would be cool. Playing as someone that looks like me would be cool, I guess. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend I deserve it.

I'm sorry if that upsets you to read, because again, my intention isn't to attack you but the argument you made. And it's one I've seen one too many times. And frankly, I'm tired of dancing around it.

It did not upset me.

I'm glad you don't care. But others do. And this isn't about having games where a character's race or gender is the focal point, no one I've seen is asking for that. In fact, that really misses the point quite badly because the whole point is that games can and should include minorities without needing to make a statement or be about it unless the developers intend it. Even though you care about representation getting better, it's really dismissive to write what comes across as "well I'm not bothered by it" because the implication is "so neither should you."

The word "implication" and "implies" is seen A LOT in this entire post. It's the common factor. I said what I said. If anything, attack that, not your spin on it. If I said it, it's from my personal brain bubble. I am not speaking or implying anything for YOU. . It's funny, I have seen this before and it's always essentially been one party verbally shadow boxing with themselves. They tell someone what they MEANT to say, and they counter that point. That isn't discussion. You're not trying to be understood, you're trying to be heard. Both are equally important to progress.

In that paragraph, I used personal pronouns. I was talking about ME. I was offering my viewpoint on it and seeing if you could relate(which you can't, that's okay), but I was not telling you how to feel.

So you're basically saying don't get upset, don't change anything that exists even if it is eminently changeable because it existing is enough to prevent any change (but not changes in mechanics, story, or anything else!), and instead wait for something that may not happen and don't you do anything that will let companies know it is in their financial interests to include you.

Right there. Again.

Changing things in mechanics, story, graphics, etc in each iteration is how games work. But changing things such as gender, orientation, and race from backlash and petitions isn't natural. Hell, it doesn't even seem genuine to me. If they didn't give a shit enough to do it before getting hassled to do so, it probably wasn't in their minds. You mentioned DA: I having LGBT characters. It didn't spawn from some vitriol or boycotting or backlash. It was something they decided to put in their game, and hopefully people fund that shit so it can happen MORE. EA gave them the go ahead to do this, they took the risk.

]I'm also going to point out that frowning on boycotts implies an obligation to buy something you don't necessarily agree with, when consumers have every right to not buy something for any reason.[/B] And given that consumers often only have their voices heard through their choice on what to buy (look at Microsoft reacting to the low sales of the Xbox One), and given the community's penchant for trying to enact change against things like DRM or DLC or season passes through vitriol, petitions and boycotting, it seems super strange to deny it as a vehicle for expression.

Again, not implying that. I was simply making an observation on how those situations usually go. Also if you're going to use "money talks" why don't you use it when talking about a game that is unrepresentative. Most people now instead of not buying a game they are upset with because of representation, they demand or request something from it.

 

[call_kotaku]

So you know that her article was predicated by violent threats, torrents of harassment, and other efforts to drive women out of the hobby, and you're still going to say that the real problem is that Alexander wasn't polite enough in writing about the people doing that harassing?

I'm not making comparisons or any sort of equivalency, I'm just saying it was unnecessary and served to escalate the situation. I guess we need a FGC-style tier list of awfulness before every post to say that /v/ and #gamergate ringleaders are S+ tier assholes and angry gaming journalists/writers are just the E. Hondas of toxicity: potent in certain matchups but greatly outclassed by the real douchebags.

And the fact that she didn't point out that it was a specific group of people instigating these things and instead went after a nebulous demographic is exactly why it was ill-advised. In her defense her article was only one of several basically articulating similar ideas in similar tones, and her being singled out as the core offender is misogynistic in and of itself.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I don't proudly self-identify as a gamer, even though I love video games, because it's too generic for my social circles. If someone at my workplace (UPS) asked if I was a "gamer", I would probably answer in the affirmative by qualifying what games I play.

The reason I think people on GAF may cringe at the term is because we get the impression that our community is hugely diverse. I mean, there are entire groups of people that mostly play games from one franchise, or even mostly play just one game. There are groups of people that play every indie game, that play every release from the largest publishers, that play the games of decades past; there are people that fall at every point on these spectrums.

I understand Leigh was motivated to write her article in response to a trend of disgusting behavior, but without that context within the article itself, it seems overgeneralized and offensive:

"It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there."

It sounds like she could be describing any one of us at a convention (though she stipulates young men), but people know why they're standing there. They're standing there to try a new game because they love trying new games. We may be socially awkward, and it probably correlates to our hobby, but that can be something that we can work together to change as a culture. I believe that people, yes even people who fit her characterization of "gamer", can change themselves and consequently change the culture. Maybe her article will shame people into considering their biases, but I doubt it. Hopefully she was just blowing off steam, because even if she's trying to encourage people to change through shame, this doesn't seem effective. As someone who shares her disgust and wants to be on her side, even I found it offensive.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

You're actually, literally twisting her words here. For example, where does she say she does not do these things? I mean, you're making the most bullshit possible argument here, you're literally making shit up and pulling shit from thin air. The same thing goes for all of the subsequent quotes you use here, and the snarky "interpretations" you make where you disingenuously add in "but not me" when it's actually nowhere to be found in the text. This is so intellectually dishonest I don't even know what you think you were trying to accomplish.

I'm doing no such thing. If you want to make up a fantasyland reading of the article in which she is including herself as a member of the group she criticizes for not having a real culture beyond mindless consumerism, for being young men in mushroom hats queuing listlessly for posters who don't know how to dress or behave, or for being people who know nothing about social or professional interaction who cause real-life harm because of the online wars they "concoct," I can't stop you. Maybe you know Leigh Alexander's heart and it is pure. But this is simply not a reasonable reading of the text of the article.

So you are confirming she's saying she's a part of this thing she has been covering: "All of us." The key word being "us." Notice that here, at this point, she switches from her describing the group she's been within for years, suggests that lately things have changed (which she immediately gets to explaining), stops using "I" and stops using "us" and begins saying "you": "You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this and this and this are the prominent public face your business presents to the rest of the world." Now it's no longer about all of us, it's saying if this describes you, then you have some hard choices. And it goes on like that, saying if this describes you, you're actually a vocal minority in the sphere of people who play games, and are becoming irrelevant.

This is literally one pronoun in the entire article. It's about a third of the way in. It's obviously there for rhetorical rather than semantic effect, it's not even clear her intent is to say "all of us [as gamers]" as opposed to "all of us [as human beings]" or something similarly broad (I incline towards the latter reading: saying "all of us [as gamers] should be above this" doesn't make sense, since there's no particular normative reason why gamers should be above anything).

You're reading this "things have changed" narrative into the text. I see a "things have been changing and will continue to change" narrative, but I see no indication that all the criticisms of gamers and gamer culture that comprise the first third of the article, and that we're currently talking about, fit into this narrative. Similarly, your "if/then" thesis is a wishful confabulation: there is no if/then in the first part of the article where she's mocking slovenly mushroom-headed manchildren. Her readers begin the article either identifying or not identifying as the mushroom-headed manchildren, and there is no clear reason why they should stop identifying as them just because she tosses in a couple of conditionals. Indeed, later on in the article she explicitly tells the mushroomheads that it's not enough if all of them aren't harassers: their culture is still culpable. The culture she assigned them at the beginning of the article.

Simply put: there is no deictic shift from "we (inclusive of you)" to "you" in this article. Alexander makes it quite clear from the beginning of the article that the two groupings are "I ~ we (exclusive of you)" and "they -> you." The deictic shift is from "they" in the first part to "you" in the second - from describing to accusing. There is no shift whatsoever from first to second person. A single use of an arguably inclusive pronoun "us" a third of the way in doesn't come close to justifying your reading.

 

[flatearthpandas]

So you are confirming she's saying she's a part of this thing she has been covering: "All of us." The key word being "us." Notice that here, at this point, she switches from her describing the group she's been within for years, suggests that lately things have changed (which she immediately gets to explaining), stops using "I" and stops using "us" and begins saying "you": "You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this and this and this are the prominent public face your business presents to the rest of the world." Now it's no longer about all of us, it's saying if this describes you, then you have some hard choices. And it goes on like that, saying if this describes you, you're actually a vocal minority in the sphere of people who play games, and are becoming irrelevant.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty.

She uses the first person plural to describe the community as a whole literally one time. Given the rest of the article, it's arguable that it was on accident. The community before that was third person. First person plural occurs many times after that instance, referring to writers and developers and the new wave of non-gamers. The attacks remain on second and third person.

Not just You who have a choice. But They who grew up gaming. They AAA publishers and devs who forced We journalists to court gamers in the first place and tell those socially awkward idiots which products to buy--referring to her disgusting depiction of people who have done no wrong at the beginning of the article.

No, she systematically and purposefully separates herself from the community from sentence one.

 

[Freshmaker]

This is an extraordinarily uncharitable and basically absurd reading. Leigh Alexander has worked in gaming for years. She wrote a whole book about the ways that computers and video games influenced her childhood. She has little interactive fiction games she's created on her website.

Be that as it may, she adopts a tone in that article as if she *is* somehow not involved in gamer culture. That's the the aspect of the article I find especially grating because it's obviously nonsense due to the nature of her career as you've detailed.

It really reads as if she can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Kelthink]

Holy shit, people are reading so much into this Alexander article that their heads have gone through the fucking screen. It's beyond obtuse at this point.

That Rhodes article on the first page is a great deconstruction of the hodge-podge that is #gamergate. It's a load of bollocks.

 

[chrominance]

Be that as it may, she adopts a tone in that article as if she *is* somehow not involved in gamer culture. That's the the aspect of the article I find especially grating because it's obviously nonsense due to the nature of her career as you've detailed.

It really reads as if she can't see the forest for the trees.

When you've been told over and over by many people over the years that you aren't really a gamer, or aren't really a part of the gaming community, or don't cover games well, or had bad opinions while drunk on a podcast, or any of the other criticisms/insults Leigh Alexander's gotten, can you really blame her if she finally decides you're actually right, that she's not one of you?

Besides which, it's actually true to an extent. Back when she was writing on a regular basis for Gamasutra, her beat was massively multiplayer worlds, which could include MMOs but also included games as diverse as Puzzle Pirates and Second Life. She wrote occasionally about Japanese eroge games. Most of her focus has actually been on games outside the mainstream, and thus not a part of the "gaming culture" she isolates herself from (and the "gaming culture" you presume we all share). Yes, occasionally she will comment on games with more mass appeal like Bioshock Infinite and Grand Theft Auto V, but that doesn't mean she's somehow culpable for gaming culture.

 

[Freshmaker]

When you've been told over and over by many people over the years that you aren't really a gamer, or aren't really a part of the gaming community, or don't cover games well, or had bad opinions while drunk on a podcast, or any of the other criticisms/insults Leigh Alexander's gotten, can you really blame her if she finally decides you're actually right, that she's not one of you?

I can't blame her for feeling that way, but that doesn't change where she's actually coming from. It's an odd stance really because pointing out that she shares the same hobby wouldn't alienate people.

Most of her focus has actually been on games outside the mainstream, and thus not a part of the "gaming culture" she isolates herself from (and the "gaming culture" you presume we all share). Yes, occasionally she will comment on games with more mass appeal like Bioshock Infinite and Grand Theft Auto V, but that doesn't mean she's somehow culpable for gaming culture.

Nope. That's still gaming culture.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

When you've been told over and over by many people over the years that you aren't really a gamer, or aren't really a part of the gaming community, or don't cover games well, or had bad opinions while drunk on a podcast, or any of the other criticisms/insults Leigh Alexander's gotten, can you really blame her if she finally decides you're actually right, that she's not one of you?

Not at all! She can self-identify however she pleases, that's her right as a human being. To be frank I sympathize with (and perhaps even understand, a little) her struggles as an outsider trying to fit in even amongst other outsiders, and if at the end of the day she doesn't want to be a self-identified "gamer" anymore that's perfectly OK with me.

That's not what I'm blaming her for. I'm blaming her for writing an insulting, logically incoherent, and morally indefensible article. The same thing that every single other person should be blaming her (or at the very least not defending her) for doing. Except a lot of people are twisting themselves in knots in order to not blame her because she's on their "side," and tribal loyalty outweighs any intellectual commitment they might normally have to confront prejudice, bullying, and inflammatory language.

 

[boogie2988]

Hi guys. I've seen a lot of people in here speaking for me and about me and also allowing the things I've created to speak on my behalf. I thought I'd go ahead and speak for myself here on the issue.

yes I am aware that gamergate started because of a woman doing some silly things and people who don't generally like women grabbing the reigns. But this event also started a fir.

I love the gaming industry. hell, I love gaming journalism. Its why I create something similar to it on my channels. I love to talk about games, I love the games themselves, and I love the things that go on in the industry.

But certainly we've seen a tide turn over the past few years. IDK what caused it, but its almost as if many of the gaming websites didn't WANT to be writing about games any more. Instead they started writing about anything else. Kotaku for example is a site that has been very kind to me, but I'll still use it as an example. The kotaku of 2 years ago is very different from the one it is today.

There was a period of time in gaming when these websites talked about games, reviewed them, and talked about things happening in the industry. I'd love to see a return to that.

"Have you seen this new robot at sony" which is sponsored by sony really has little to no place on a gaming website if that fucking robot doesnt play games. Also to not say that its a sponsored piece is deplorable.

The only two things I want to gain out of all of this is simply:
1) to make sure games, gamers, and gaming culture are left relatively unhurt after all of this.
2) i'd love to see gaming websites get back to doing what they're supposed to do. reporting unbiased reports on gaming.

Of COURSE it sucks that people have been hurt during this. Myself, I've been called "A fat neckbeard" by people on both sides of this event more times than i can count. Its not much different from my usual harassment though so its pretty easy to ignore. But yes, I've had the proud privilege of a self proclaimed SJW to tell me to kill myself because I was so fat. That was fun.

I sincerely hope that the people I still consider friends in the gaming journalist industry decide to side with the gamers, pick up their dignity and start reporting the news. I hope that gamergate does not rest until the decision to do so.

I sincerely hope no on else is harmed before that time comes. I'll do everything I can to preach kindness, civility, and moderation in the meantime.

 

[boogie2988]

Also I'd like to say that its amusing that the folks at 4chan have branded me as an "oppurtunistic sellout who is only doing it for the views" while at the same time a friend in the industry told me I was "hurting my brand" and reducing my chances of future paydays and chances to work with gaming companies.

So that's been really nice.

 

[stonesak]

Man, remember gamers?

Even better, now we're meta-gaming!

 

[Odrion]

I try to be fair with my opinion about Leigh Alexander but jesus christ her writing can be hostile. Just googling random articles got me one on Kotaku where the whole gimmick is that she's being hostile towards the reader. And while I guess I got to go find it, there was an article that was basically her saying "Shut up and listen to me talk about feminism, your opinion on it doesn't matter." It even pissed off Evilore.

It's not that her feminist ideals are wrong, or she's incorrect about industry sexism, it's just that (putting it lightly) her delivery puts people off rather than persuade.

or let me put it this way: If someone posted on this forum the same way Leigh Alexander writes, would they eventually get banned?

 

[Corto]

Hi Boogie! Love your work.

I would love that games, gamers, and gaming culture would evolve after all this. And I know you would love that too. Leave them unhurt makes it seem like video games, gamers and the culture surrounding it are in a precarious situation and can be harmed in any significant way. They can't. There's a multi-billion a year industry supporting them.

And sorry to address Leigh on this same post. But I just wanted to bring the point that people need to focus on the ending paragraphs of gamasutra's Leigh article. That's the heart and summation of Leigh's opinion.

Developers and writers alike want games about more things, and games by more people. We want -- and we are getting, and will keep getting -- tragicomedy, vignette, musicals, dream worlds, family tales, ethnographies, abstract art. We will get this, because we’re creating culture now. We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating.

She loves video games, she includes herself in its culture, she feels the responsibility to be one voice for the betterment of video games discussion as a cultural medium.

 

[Kelthink]

The only two things I want to gain out of all of this is simply:
1) to make sure games, gamers, and gaming culture are left relatively unhurt after all of this.
2) i'd love to see gaming websites get back to doing what they're supposed to do. reporting unbiased reports on gaming.

I'm sorry you've endured insults for all you've said, there's no good to come from that. But these points:

1) It isn't great though. There is too much hatred in gaming that needs challenging, as well as out-dated views and representations. Everything changes and sways with the tide. It has to change.

2) As that Rhodes article says, gaming journalism has never been unbiased. It's next to impossible for that, unless your journalism is based on stuff in the long long ago.

 

[Elkazan]

Hi guys. I've seen a lot of people in here speaking for me and about me and also allowing the things I've created to speak on my behalf. I thought I'd go ahead and speak for myself here on the issue.

yes I am aware that gamergate started because of a woman doing some silly things and people who don't generally like women grabbing the reigns. But this event also started a fir.

I love the gaming industry. hell, I love gaming journalism. Its why I create something similar to it on my channels. I love to talk about games, I love the games themselves, and I love the things that go on in the industry.

But certainly we've seen a tide turn over the past few years. IDK what caused it, but its almost as if many of the gaming websites didn't WANT to be writing about games any more. Instead they started writing about anything else. Kotaku for example is a site that has been very kind to me, but I'll still use it as an example. The kotaku of 2 years ago is very different from the one it is today.

There was a period of time in gaming when these websites talked about games, reviewed them, and talked about things happening in the industry. I'd love to see a return to that.

"Have you seen this new robot at sony" which is sponsored by sony really has little to no place on a gaming website if that fucking robot doesnt play games. Also to not say that its a sponsored piece is deplorable.

The only two things I want to gain out of all of this is simply:
1) to make sure games, gamers, and gaming culture are left relatively unhurt after all of this.
2) i'd love to see gaming websites get back to doing what they're supposed to do. reporting unbiased reports on gaming.

Of COURSE it sucks that people have been hurt during this. Myself, I've been called "A fat neckbeard" by people on both sides of this event more times than i can count. Its not much different from my usual harassment though so its pretty easy to ignore. But yes, I've had the proud privilege of a self proclaimed SJW to tell me to kill myself because I was so fat. That was fun.

I sincerely hope that the people I still consider friends in the gaming journalist industry decide to side with the gamers, pick up their dignity and start reporting the news. I hope that gamergate does not rest until the decision to do so.

I sincerely hope no on else is harmed before that time comes. I'll do everything I can to preach kindness, civility, and moderation in the meantime.

It's unfortunate that so many of those demanding tolerance and equality refuse to practice what they preach. And 4chan turning their back on reason is par of the course. All the same, people will be who they are. Don't let them get to you.

You have my respect, for what it's worth.

 

[stonesak]

or let me put it this way: If someone posted on this forum the same way Leigh Alexander writes, would they eventually get banned?

The gamer is finally over. Maybe next decade!

It's over, period. Gamers lost their last ace, and that's the end of their plush mushroom hat hopes and dreams.

It's not hyperbole, it's not fanperson drivel. It is LITERALLY it for gamers. Gamers have nothing left, nothing they can say tomorrow would fix the hole now created. There is no reason left for any developer, hardcore or casual, to substantively invest in attracting gamers. Except if they want to develop misogynistic games. Who will also come to support women as equals at some point.

Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian took the last reason away that anyone would NEED to play a game with women as tropes (except MISOGONY LOL GAMERS), and the cavalcade of MRAs that will whine, but won't stir up any sympathy is not going to salvage the bloated, overdesigned behemoth that is gaming culture.

There may be some hardcore gamers that stick around like cockroaches. Some did it for GTA V. But the last bell tolled. Maybe next decade.

The age of gamers is done.

 

[Elkazan]

There is no reason left for any developer, hardcore or casual, to substantively invest in attracting gamers.

Profit is a pretty decent motivator.

 

[John Rabbit]

The gamer is finally over. Maybe next decade!

It's over, period. Gamers lost their last ace, and that's the end of their plush mushroom hat hopes and dreams.

It's not hyperbole, it's not fanperson drivel. It is LITERALLY it for gamers. Gamers have nothing left, nothing they can say tomorrow would fix the hole now created. There is no reason left for any developer, hardcore or casual, to substantively invest in attracting gamers. Except if they want to develop misogynistic games. Who will also come to support women as equals at some point.

Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian took the last reason away that anyone would NEED to play a game with women as tropes (except MISOGONY LOL GAMERS), and the cavalcade of MRAs that will whine, but won't stir up any sympathy is not going to salvage the bloated, overdesigned behemoth that is gaming culture.

There may be some hardcore gamers that stick around like cockroaches. Some did it for GTA V. But the last bell tolled. Maybe next decade.

The age of gamers is done.

this is dangerously close to Poe's Law territory.

 

[Corpekata]

https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508174331243810817

https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508175131017871361
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508175194662256640
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508175551643652096
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508175618584768512
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508175977520693249
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508176313564160000
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508176985932046336
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508177054223699968
https://twitter.com/MsMinotaur/status/508177920687210496
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508180612348256256
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508180795136032768
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508181098145136640

Sorry for the poor formatting, not sure of a good way to show twitter stuff really. Basically Quinn has been hiding in 4chan chats and screencapping them, supposedly. Pretty damning stuff if true.

Edit: Storify for easier reading https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

 

[Odrion]

okay, Zoe Quinn is officially cool again. go underdogs!

 

[Noaloha]

yes I am aware that gamergate started because of a woman doing some silly things and [...]

I've been under the impression this whole thing started because one guy did a spiteful thing which shone a spotlight on a second guy who didn't mention he'd touched a girl's boobs when second guy mentioned said girl's free game, once, in an editorial piece that was about an umbrella topic which said game fell under.

---

Two things I vainly hope come out of all of this:
1) The greater gaming community demonstrating they have the maturity to discuss matters reasonably, especially on the platforms that have the widest reach
2) The greater gaming community demonstrating they have the requisite depth of empathy to call out any and all instances of obvious bullshit and to have collective decency to emphatically, noisily, rally in support of anyone who is a victim of such obvious bullshit.

There's a time and place for the journalistic ethics conversation. The time is whenever the greater community can prove that it can act, visibly, on the surface, like a fucking grownup. The place is anywhere that doesn't involve people's private lives being invaded and turned to shit. We're at neither that time or place.

Those who, with good intent, are sincerely involved in this discussion need to first work on cleaning away all the thrown shit and spittle from off the table before sitting back down.