I don't even know if it's stupidity. I'd like to know the composition of the iHealth team before I make any claim on that. Knowing how software projects go and team makeups, there's probably at least 1-2 women on that team (Apple of all places would be pretty keen to make sure of that) and I'm guessing no one bothered to raise a concern and they had some key features they wanted to get into version 1 and that was the end of that.
That is stupidity. If you go "hey we developed a super-app that lets you input all your health-apps you use!" and then don't include apps that help women track their menstrual cycles you are an idiot.
Hmm, I don't really see any claims of what kind of health data it tracks. Just that it let's any app that wants to, to use the central location to track data.
I'm wondering now though, can apps record custom metadata like period time and all that? That would make this entire thing moot if true.
I'll try to look deeper into that now (I have an apple developer ID), I'm piqued as to how much freedom they gave app developers.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Looks like it lets developers store whatever they want, the ones there are just predefined variables. They're useful for uniting different apps together, but it doesn't make any exclusion on any data. The way it is now, if two apps record A1Cs using the same units, they'd both be able to access each others' data points so long as they use the predefined metadata key. But that doesn't mean an app can't record A1Cs by calling it something else either.
Hm.
Well alright, no reason to even be angry anymore.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
You know what - this just makes me feel sad. No real anger, just a sad resignation that the hobby I enjoy (and I imagine that you all do as well) is filled with raging misogyny that won't ever be stamped out.
The bad guys won, and I'm not sure how the good guys can. And it just makes me sad.
Eh. I don't have a problem with that. Alexander's piece was a shitty hatchet job and if people want to complain to advertisers because of her piece, so be it. Who knew that shitting on millions of people might upset someone?
Care to explain how it was a hatchet job?
And let's not forget that the whole origin of GamerGate was a jilted man trying to get back at his ex. This tree was well and truly poisoned straight from the seed.
It should be very obvious from reading the article. But the fact you're a piece of shit according to Alexander if you've ever gone to PAX would be a good starting point.
And, considering that more or less applies to Intel's booths at various cons they've had them at, well, I can imagine how they'd quickly come to the conclusion that maybe they shouldn't pay people to write about how their customers are shitty, they are shitty, and the combination is everything that is wrong with the industry.
No, that's not what she said at all. And you know what - the gaming culture is pretty shitty, because it treats women like shit, and as long as we enable that, instead of confronting it, it's going to remain shitty. Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it go away.
Which leads into my second point, which I note you avoided - the simple fact is that for all their bloviating about "journalism ethics", the simple matter is that the whole movement is rooted in misogyny. Which is why the only appropriate response to anything attached to GamerGate is to dismiss it.
You know what - this just makes me feel sad. No real anger, just a sad resignation that the hobby I enjoy (and I imagine that you all do as well) is filled with raging misogyny that won't ever be stamped out.
The bad guys won, and I'm not sure how the good guys can. And it just makes me sad.
Eh. I don't have a problem with that. Alexander's piece was a shitty hatchet job and if people want to complain to advertisers because of her piece, so be it. Who knew that shitting on millions of people might upset someone?
Care to explain how it was a hatchet job?
And let's not forget that the whole origin of GamerGate was a jilted man trying to get back at his ex. This tree was well and truly poisoned straight from the seed.
It should be very obvious from reading the article. But the fact you're a piece of shit according to Alexander if you've ever gone to PAX would be a good starting point.
And, considering that more or less applies to Intel's booths at various cons they've had them at, well, I can imagine how they'd quickly come to the conclusion that maybe they shouldn't pay people to write about how their customers are shitty, they are shitty, and the combination is everything that is wrong with the industry.
No, that's not what she said at all. And you know what - the gaming culture is pretty shitty, because it treats women like shit, and as long as we enable that, instead of confronting it, it's going to remain shitty. Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it go away.
Read the article again. She barely addresses sexism, she is mostly cussing out mainstream gaming tastes and consumerism in gaming. It is willful misinterpretation to think that article doesn't disparage people who go to cons, to include PAX, because that's the opening shot of the article.
Which leads into my second point, which I note you avoided - the simple fact is that for all their bloviating about "journalism ethics", the simple matter is that the whole movement is rooted in misogyny. Which is why the only appropriate response to anything attached to GamerGate is to dismiss it.
How short memories are, when this is just one case of many when people have questioned the ethics of games journalism, to include firings over reviews, or reviews with gigantic sidebar ads for the same product, or reviewer events where journalists are flown out to test games on the publisher's terms, review copies in general, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take a grain of salt for the next bit because there is going to be some disingenuous culture wars bullshit, but people have been talking about objectivity issues in gaming every since people talked about gaming on the internet, pretty much. I imagine you could dredge up something on a BBS somewhere about whether Nintendo Power was unfairly generous to first party titles, for god's sake.
(As a meta comentary, should this be its own thread? This does seem somewhat off-topic, but not sure).
This thread hasn't been on topic for the last 10 pages or so
"Developers and writers alike want games about more things, and games by more people"
Given that those are the people who actually make the games, by definition they get whatever games they want. Well, assuming she's talking about writers for games, and not just random people writing about games? It's unclear
You know what - this just makes me feel sad. No real anger, just a sad resignation that the hobby I enjoy (and I imagine that you all do as well) is filled with raging misogyny that won't ever be stamped out.
The bad guys won, and I'm not sure how the good guys can. And it just makes me sad.
Eh. I don't have a problem with that. Alexander's piece was a shitty hatchet job and if people want to complain to advertisers because of her piece, so be it. Who knew that shitting on millions of people might upset someone?
Care to explain how it was a hatchet job?
And let's not forget that the whole origin of GamerGate was a jilted man trying to get back at his ex. This tree was well and truly poisoned straight from the seed.
It should be very obvious from reading the article. But the fact you're a piece of shit according to Alexander if you've ever gone to PAX would be a good starting point.
And, considering that more or less applies to Intel's booths at various cons they've had them at, well, I can imagine how they'd quickly come to the conclusion that maybe they shouldn't pay people to write about how their customers are shitty, they are shitty, and the combination is everything that is wrong with the industry.
No, that's not what she said at all. And you know what - the gaming culture is pretty shitty, because it treats women like shit, and as long as we enable that, instead of confronting it, it's going to remain shitty. Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it go away.
Read the article again. She barely addresses sexism, she is mostly cussing out mainstream gaming tastes and consumerism in gaming. It is willful misinterpretation to think that article doesn't disparage people who go to cons, to include PAX, because that's the opening shot of the article.
Which leads into my second point, which I note you avoided - the simple fact is that for all their bloviating about "journalism ethics", the simple matter is that the whole movement is rooted in misogyny. Which is why the only appropriate response to anything attached to GamerGate is to dismiss it.
How short memories are, when this is just one case of many when people have questioned the ethics of games journalism, to include firings over reviews, or reviews with gigantic sidebar ads for the same product, or reviewer events where journalists are flown out to test games on the publisher's terms, review copies in general, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take a grain of salt for the next bit because there is going to be some disingenuous culture wars bullshit, but people have been talking about objectivity issues in gaming every since people talked about gaming on the internet, pretty much. I imagine you could dredge up something on a BBS somewhere about whether Nintendo Power was unfairly generous to first party titles, for god's sake.
(As a meta comentary, should this be its own thread? This does seem somewhat off-topic, but not sure).
I don't really see what you're saying at all. Is the article insulting to some gamers? Yes. But she seems to be talking about gamer culture as a cultural entity, not individual gamers. It's like when we talk about white privilege: it riles up a lot of white people who think we're insulting them, when we're not. We're talking about a broader societal phenomenon; you're part of it, in a sense, by being part of society, but that doesn't mean you're a contributor or the epitome of it. I'm an academic; I still talk about academic culture as being dissociated from reality, esoteric, dominated by narcissism, both individual and collective, and aloof. We have to be able to say these things about ourselves, because otherwise... well, otherwise, we continue to be those things without any feedback. If someone's offended by it... it's probably because it rings true.
In the end, I would still consider myself a gamer. But I don't consider myself one of the gamers that Alexander's talking about. I don't go to cons. I don't get feverishly excited by new releases. I am not a white dude, but I am a young dude with disposable income. I was a lonely basement kid (not really, our basement was unfinished, but you know). I don't really know how to dress or behave (though I pretend I do via imitation). And I am definitely, definitely angry. I don't think Alexander's talking about me, but even if she is, that's self-knowledge I should have about people's perceptions of me.
But goddamn, do I know the sort of person Alexander's talking about. They might not check all those boxes precisely, but I know who she's talking about. She's speaking in generalities, because it's an op-ed, not a thesis, and maybe she shouldn't be, but I don't know what you'd point to in this editorial as being definitively untrue.
You know what - this just makes me feel sad. No real anger, just a sad resignation that the hobby I enjoy (and I imagine that you all do as well) is filled with raging misogyny that won't ever be stamped out.
The bad guys won, and I'm not sure how the good guys can. And it just makes me sad.
Eh. I don't have a problem with that. Alexander's piece was a shitty hatchet job and if people want to complain to advertisers because of her piece, so be it. Who knew that shitting on millions of people might upset someone?
Care to explain how it was a hatchet job?
And let's not forget that the whole origin of GamerGate was a jilted man trying to get back at his ex. This tree was well and truly poisoned straight from the seed.
It should be very obvious from reading the article. But the fact you're a piece of shit according to Alexander if you've ever gone to PAX would be a good starting point.
And, considering that more or less applies to Intel's booths at various cons they've had them at, well, I can imagine how they'd quickly come to the conclusion that maybe they shouldn't pay people to write about how their customers are shitty, they are shitty, and the combination is everything that is wrong with the industry.
No, that's not what she said at all. And you know what - the gaming culture is pretty shitty, because it treats women like shit, and as long as we enable that, instead of confronting it, it's going to remain shitty. Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it go away.
Read the article again. She barely addresses sexism, she is mostly cussing out mainstream gaming tastes and consumerism in gaming. It is willful misinterpretation to think that article doesn't disparage people who go to cons, to include PAX, because that's the opening shot of the article.
Which leads into my second point, which I note you avoided - the simple fact is that for all their bloviating about "journalism ethics", the simple matter is that the whole movement is rooted in misogyny. Which is why the only appropriate response to anything attached to GamerGate is to dismiss it.
How short memories are, when this is just one case of many when people have questioned the ethics of games journalism, to include firings over reviews, or reviews with gigantic sidebar ads for the same product, or reviewer events where journalists are flown out to test games on the publisher's terms, review copies in general, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take a grain of salt for the next bit because there is going to be some disingenuous culture wars bullshit, but people have been talking about objectivity issues in gaming every since people talked about gaming on the internet, pretty much. I imagine you could dredge up something on a BBS somewhere about whether Nintendo Power was unfairly generous to first party titles, for god's sake.
(As a meta comentary, should this be its own thread? This does seem somewhat off-topic, but not sure).
I don't really see what you're saying at all. Is the article insulting to some gamers? Yes. But she seems to be talking about gamer culture as a cultural entity, not individual gamers. It's like when we talk about white privilege: it riles up a lot of white people who think we're insulting them, when we're not. We're talking about a broader societal phenomenon; you're part of it, in a sense, by being part of society, but that doesn't mean you're a contributor or the epitome of it. I'm an academic; I still talk about academic culture as being dissociated from reality, esoteric, dominated by narcissism, both individual and collective, and aloof. We have to be able to say these things about ourselves, because otherwise... well, otherwise, we continue to be those things without any feedback. If someone's offended by it... it's probably because it rings true.
In the end, I would still consider myself a gamer. But I don't consider myself one of the gamers that Alexander's talking about. I don't go to cons. I don't get feverishly excited by new releases. I am not a white dude, but I am a young dude with disposable income. I was a lonely basement kid (not really, our basement was unfinished, but you know). I don't really know how to dress or behave (though I pretend I do via imitation). And I am definitely, definitely angry. I don't think Alexander's talking about me, but even if she is, that's self-knowledge I should have about people's perceptions of me.
But goddamn, do I know the sort of person Alexander's talking about. They might not check all those boxes precisely, but I know who she's talking about. She's speaking in generalities, because it's an op-ed, not a thesis, and maybe she shouldn't be, but I don't know what you'd point to in this editorial as being definitively untrue.
I don't give broad brush insults the benefit of the doubt, especially because I often mean exactly what I say when I make them myself. There's nothing unreasonable about people who don't like being described as someone who doesn't know how to dress or behave asking companies not to pay people to insult them, even if it happened to be true (though I'd put more stock in a GQ writer saying it than a Gamasutra one).
That article is the exact thing you post on a forum after getting super angry about something, get infacted, and later say, "Man, I totally deserved that infraction."
You know what - this just makes me feel sad. No real anger, just a sad resignation that the hobby I enjoy (and I imagine that you all do as well) is filled with raging misogyny that won't ever be stamped out.
The bad guys won, and I'm not sure how the good guys can. And it just makes me sad.
Eh. I don't have a problem with that. Alexander's piece was a shitty hatchet job and if people want to complain to advertisers because of her piece, so be it. Who knew that shitting on millions of people might upset someone?
Care to explain how it was a hatchet job?
And let's not forget that the whole origin of GamerGate was a jilted man trying to get back at his ex. This tree was well and truly poisoned straight from the seed.
It should be very obvious from reading the article. But the fact you're a piece of shit according to Alexander if you've ever gone to PAX would be a good starting point.
And, considering that more or less applies to Intel's booths at various cons they've had them at, well, I can imagine how they'd quickly come to the conclusion that maybe they shouldn't pay people to write about how their customers are shitty, they are shitty, and the combination is everything that is wrong with the industry.
No, that's not what she said at all. And you know what - the gaming culture is pretty shitty, because it treats women like shit, and as long as we enable that, instead of confronting it, it's going to remain shitty. Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it go away.
Read the article again. She barely addresses sexism, she is mostly cussing out mainstream gaming tastes and consumerism in gaming. It is willful misinterpretation to think that article doesn't disparage people who go to cons, to include PAX, because that's the opening shot of the article.
Which leads into my second point, which I note you avoided - the simple fact is that for all their bloviating about "journalism ethics", the simple matter is that the whole movement is rooted in misogyny. Which is why the only appropriate response to anything attached to GamerGate is to dismiss it.
How short memories are, when this is just one case of many when people have questioned the ethics of games journalism, to include firings over reviews, or reviews with gigantic sidebar ads for the same product, or reviewer events where journalists are flown out to test games on the publisher's terms, review copies in general, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take a grain of salt for the next bit because there is going to be some disingenuous culture wars bullshit, but people have been talking about objectivity issues in gaming every since people talked about gaming on the internet, pretty much. I imagine you could dredge up something on a BBS somewhere about whether Nintendo Power was unfairly generous to first party titles, for god's sake.
(As a meta comentary, should this be its own thread? This does seem somewhat off-topic, but not sure).
Sure, but GamerGate isn't about game's journalism. It never was.
Because it started with a guy accusing his ex-girlfriend of being a slut and a whore and it went down the misogyny hole from there.
Is it not possible for people to bring up valid points for bad reasons?
Except this wasn't a valid point. It started off as sexism and descended from there into a bunch of misogynistic personal attacks that we have written evidence were done under the guise of being about journalistic ethics.
You can talk about journalistic ethics in the video game industry all you want. You just can't do it under the guise of GamersGate. In the same way you can't claim to be Nazis-for-Jewish-Rights.
Points are valid regardless of context. If there's a problem with journalistic ethics, then talk about that and ignore them. It can't be that big, I mean I haven't even heard of gamergate before, I thought you guys were just misspelling the company. Writing angry rants back is just going to fuel the flames more. It's probably what they want in the first place
I don't really see what you're saying at all. Is the article insulting to some gamers? Yes. But she seems to be talking about gamer culture as a cultural entity, not individual gamers. It's like when we talk about white privilege: it riles up a lot of white people who think we're insulting them, when we're not. We're talking about a broader societal phenomenon; you're part of it, in a sense, by being part of society, but that doesn't mean you're a contributor or the epitome of it. I'm an academic; I still talk about academic culture as being dissociated from reality, esoteric, dominated by narcissism, both individual and collective, and aloof. We have to be able to say these things about ourselves, because otherwise... well, otherwise, we continue to be those things without any feedback. If someone's offended by it... it's probably because it rings true.
In the end, I would still consider myself a gamer. But I don't consider myself one of the gamers that Alexander's talking about. I don't go to cons. I don't get feverishly excited by new releases. I am not a white dude, but I am a young dude with disposable income. I was a lonely basement kid (not really, our basement was unfinished, but you know). I don't really know how to dress or behave (though I pretend I do via imitation). And I am definitely, definitely angry. I don't think Alexander's talking about me, but even if she is, that's self-knowledge I should have about people's perceptions of me.
But goddamn, do I know the sort of person Alexander's talking about. They might not check all those boxes precisely, but I know who she's talking about. She's speaking in generalities, because it's an op-ed, not a thesis, and maybe she shouldn't be, but I don't know what you'd point to in this editorial as being definitively untrue.
I don't give broad brush insults the benefit of the doubt, especially because I often mean exactly what I say when I make them myself. There's nothing unreasonable about people who don't like being described as someone who doesn't know how to dress or behave asking companies not to pay people to insult them, even if it happened to be true (though I'd put more stock in a GQ writer saying it than a Gamasutra one).
That article is the exact thing you post on a forum after getting super angry about something, get infacted, and later say, "Man, I totally deserved that infraction."
This is totally better written and more coherent than things that I post when super-angry, and I've only been infracted twice (IIRC) - once for not reporting a spammer and once for stupidly spoiling an Olympics event, forgetting about tape delay.
Again, what explicitly is untrue in the editorial? If you can't point that out, then I'd have to stand by a person's prerogative to write the truth (or something close enough to it).
Points are valid regardless of context. If there's a problem with journalistic ethics, then talk about that and ignore them. It can't be that big, I mean I haven't even heard of gamergate before, I thought you guys were just misspelling the company. Writing angry rants back is just going to fuel the flames more. It's probably what they want in the first place
Nope, sorry, context matters. Alot.
Even if you might be making good points, by posting them under the banner of a larger misogynistic movement you are bringing attention and support to that movement and attempting to legitimize the other parts of it's message. That is what what a movement is about after all.
If you wanna post about ethics in games "journalism", there's tons of people who will listen. And who have been talking about it for years. Just don't do it under the umbrella of a movement created to and dedicated to the harassment of women.
This shit ain't hard. It's the same reason you don't go around trying to talk about the importance treating minorities with respect under the hashtag #Naziswereright.
Points are valid regardless of context. If there's a problem with journalistic ethics, then talk about that and ignore them. It can't be that big, I mean I haven't even heard of gamergate before, I thought you guys were just misspelling the company. Writing angry rants back is just going to fuel the flames more. It's probably what they want in the first place
Problem B is that everything they bring up as an "ethics" issue...isn't, really. They ignore actual issues of ethics in favor of whatever makes their target of the moment look bad.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Points are valid regardless of context. If there's a problem with journalistic ethics, then talk about that and ignore them. It can't be that big, I mean I haven't even heard of gamergate before, I thought you guys were just misspelling the company. Writing angry rants back is just going to fuel the flames more. It's probably what they want in the first place
Problem B is that everything they bring up as an "ethics" issue...isn't, really. They ignore actual issues of ethics in favor of whatever makes their target of the moment look bad.
I don't actually recall one valid example they've brought to light re: ethics in games journalism.
I don't really see what you're saying at all. Is the article insulting to some gamers? Yes. But she seems to be talking about gamer culture as a cultural entity, not individual gamers. It's like when we talk about white privilege: it riles up a lot of white people who think we're insulting them, when we're not. We're talking about a broader societal phenomenon; you're part of it, in a sense, by being part of society, but that doesn't mean you're a contributor or the epitome of it. I'm an academic; I still talk about academic culture as being dissociated from reality, esoteric, dominated by narcissism, both individual and collective, and aloof. We have to be able to say these things about ourselves, because otherwise... well, otherwise, we continue to be those things without any feedback. If someone's offended by it... it's probably because it rings true.
In the end, I would still consider myself a gamer. But I don't consider myself one of the gamers that Alexander's talking about. I don't go to cons. I don't get feverishly excited by new releases. I am not a white dude, but I am a young dude with disposable income. I was a lonely basement kid (not really, our basement was unfinished, but you know). I don't really know how to dress or behave (though I pretend I do via imitation). And I am definitely, definitely angry. I don't think Alexander's talking about me, but even if she is, that's self-knowledge I should have about people's perceptions of me.
But goddamn, do I know the sort of person Alexander's talking about. They might not check all those boxes precisely, but I know who she's talking about. She's speaking in generalities, because it's an op-ed, not a thesis, and maybe she shouldn't be, but I don't know what you'd point to in this editorial as being definitively untrue.
I don't give broad brush insults the benefit of the doubt, especially because I often mean exactly what I say when I make them myself. There's nothing unreasonable about people who don't like being described as someone who doesn't know how to dress or behave asking companies not to pay people to insult them, even if it happened to be true (though I'd put more stock in a GQ writer saying it than a Gamasutra one).
That article is the exact thing you post on a forum after getting super angry about something, get infacted, and later say, "Man, I totally deserved that infraction."
This is totally better written and more coherent than things that I post when super-angry, and I've only been infracted twice (IIRC) - once for not reporting a spammer and once for stupidly spoiling an Olympics event, forgetting about tape delay.
Again, what explicitly is untrue in the editorial? If you can't point that out, then I'd have to stand by a person's prerogative to write the truth (or something close enough to it).
If it was a less shit article, that would be a valid question. However, how exactly is one supposed to judge the accuracy of "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's just a string of shitty attacks that cashes in on stereotypes about "basement kids," people who "don’t know how to dress or behave," with veiled allusions to school shooters who don't like your cool indie games that totally explore the self-actualization of making toast for the first time because they play those evil Call of Duty games that are super consumerist.
Gamasutra has every prerogative to run articles that trade on the same tired cliches and group attacks that shitty human beings with nothing valuable to say have made against video games and the people who play them since time immemorial, but they don't have a right to make money doing it. If Intel decides they would prefer to not pay people to attack the people who are genuinely interested in their products, well, I commend them for taking something which I'd argue is both business savvy and the best ethical path. I know I'd prefer the marketing portion of the money I spend on my next Intel chip to go to less shitty articles, personally.
This seems to have turned into a Women In Gaming and Tech thread, which seems markedly different from anything related to the actual OP.
So: teh lockz
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Apple does. Right here.
Right except that we do know that the whole of Apple is 70% male and even 80% in the tech field. But even supposing that there were women in the team it doesn't matter. It's still an oversight.
I'm wondering now though, can apps record custom metadata like period time and all that? That would make this entire thing moot if true.
I'll try to look deeper into that now (I have an apple developer ID), I'm piqued as to how much freedom they gave app developers.
Looks like it lets developers store whatever they want, the ones there are just predefined variables. They're useful for uniting different apps together, but it doesn't make any exclusion on any data. The way it is now, if two apps record A1Cs using the same units, they'd both be able to access each others' data points so long as they use the predefined metadata key. But that doesn't mean an app can't record A1Cs by calling it something else either.
Hm.
Well alright, no reason to even be angry anymore.
No, that's not what she said at all. And you know what - the gaming culture is pretty shitty, because it treats women like shit, and as long as we enable that, instead of confronting it, it's going to remain shitty. Closing your eyes to the truth doesn't make it go away.
Which leads into my second point, which I note you avoided - the simple fact is that for all their bloviating about "journalism ethics", the simple matter is that the whole movement is rooted in misogyny. Which is why the only appropriate response to anything attached to GamerGate is to dismiss it.
Read the article again. She barely addresses sexism, she is mostly cussing out mainstream gaming tastes and consumerism in gaming. It is willful misinterpretation to think that article doesn't disparage people who go to cons, to include PAX, because that's the opening shot of the article.
How short memories are, when this is just one case of many when people have questioned the ethics of games journalism, to include firings over reviews, or reviews with gigantic sidebar ads for the same product, or reviewer events where journalists are flown out to test games on the publisher's terms, review copies in general, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take a grain of salt for the next bit because there is going to be some disingenuous culture wars bullshit, but people have been talking about objectivity issues in gaming every since people talked about gaming on the internet, pretty much. I imagine you could dredge up something on a BBS somewhere about whether Nintendo Power was unfairly generous to first party titles, for god's sake.
(As a meta comentary, should this be its own thread? This does seem somewhat off-topic, but not sure).
"Developers and writers alike want games about more things, and games by more people"
Given that those are the people who actually make the games, by definition they get whatever games they want. Well, assuming she's talking about writers for games, and not just random people writing about games? It's unclear
You sure? I thought this was the AngelHedgie hates techies thread. :snap:
You are technically correct, but he hasn't put that in the title yet!
I don't really see what you're saying at all. Is the article insulting to some gamers? Yes. But she seems to be talking about gamer culture as a cultural entity, not individual gamers. It's like when we talk about white privilege: it riles up a lot of white people who think we're insulting them, when we're not. We're talking about a broader societal phenomenon; you're part of it, in a sense, by being part of society, but that doesn't mean you're a contributor or the epitome of it. I'm an academic; I still talk about academic culture as being dissociated from reality, esoteric, dominated by narcissism, both individual and collective, and aloof. We have to be able to say these things about ourselves, because otherwise... well, otherwise, we continue to be those things without any feedback. If someone's offended by it... it's probably because it rings true.
In the end, I would still consider myself a gamer. But I don't consider myself one of the gamers that Alexander's talking about. I don't go to cons. I don't get feverishly excited by new releases. I am not a white dude, but I am a young dude with disposable income. I was a lonely basement kid (not really, our basement was unfinished, but you know). I don't really know how to dress or behave (though I pretend I do via imitation). And I am definitely, definitely angry. I don't think Alexander's talking about me, but even if she is, that's self-knowledge I should have about people's perceptions of me.
But goddamn, do I know the sort of person Alexander's talking about. They might not check all those boxes precisely, but I know who she's talking about. She's speaking in generalities, because it's an op-ed, not a thesis, and maybe she shouldn't be, but I don't know what you'd point to in this editorial as being definitively untrue.
I don't give broad brush insults the benefit of the doubt, especially because I often mean exactly what I say when I make them myself. There's nothing unreasonable about people who don't like being described as someone who doesn't know how to dress or behave asking companies not to pay people to insult them, even if it happened to be true (though I'd put more stock in a GQ writer saying it than a Gamasutra one).
That article is the exact thing you post on a forum after getting super angry about something, get infacted, and later say, "Man, I totally deserved that infraction."
Sure, but GamerGate isn't about game's journalism. It never was.
Because it started with a guy accusing his ex-girlfriend of being a slut and a whore and it went down the misogyny hole from there.
Except this wasn't a valid point. It started off as sexism and descended from there into a bunch of misogynistic personal attacks that we have written evidence were done under the guise of being about journalistic ethics.
You can talk about journalistic ethics in the video game industry all you want. You just can't do it under the guise of GamersGate. In the same way you can't claim to be Nazis-for-Jewish-Rights.
This is totally better written and more coherent than things that I post when super-angry, and I've only been infracted twice (IIRC) - once for not reporting a spammer and once for stupidly spoiling an Olympics event, forgetting about tape delay.
Again, what explicitly is untrue in the editorial? If you can't point that out, then I'd have to stand by a person's prerogative to write the truth (or something close enough to it).
Nope, sorry, context matters. Alot.
Even if you might be making good points, by posting them under the banner of a larger misogynistic movement you are bringing attention and support to that movement and attempting to legitimize the other parts of it's message. That is what what a movement is about after all.
If you wanna post about ethics in games "journalism", there's tons of people who will listen. And who have been talking about it for years. Just don't do it under the umbrella of a movement created to and dedicated to the harassment of women.
This shit ain't hard. It's the same reason you don't go around trying to talk about the importance treating minorities with respect under the hashtag #Naziswereright.
Problem B is that everything they bring up as an "ethics" issue...isn't, really. They ignore actual issues of ethics in favor of whatever makes their target of the moment look bad.
I don't actually recall one valid example they've brought to light re: ethics in games journalism.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
If it was a less shit article, that would be a valid question. However, how exactly is one supposed to judge the accuracy of "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's just a string of shitty attacks that cashes in on stereotypes about "basement kids," people who "don’t know how to dress or behave," with veiled allusions to school shooters who don't like your cool indie games that totally explore the self-actualization of making toast for the first time because they play those evil Call of Duty games that are super consumerist.
Gamasutra has every prerogative to run articles that trade on the same tired cliches and group attacks that shitty human beings with nothing valuable to say have made against video games and the people who play them since time immemorial, but they don't have a right to make money doing it. If Intel decides they would prefer to not pay people to attack the people who are genuinely interested in their products, well, I commend them for taking something which I'd argue is both business savvy and the best ethical path. I know I'd prefer the marketing portion of the money I spend on my next Intel chip to go to less shitty articles, personally.
So: teh lockz