Mike has explicitly stated that he denies the existence of trans as a real thing, and that he doesn't believe people have the necessity and therefore right to identify as something other than their birth status.
No, he hasn't.
He plainly has,
But making a true statement about something a person did is now libel apparently? Idk. Sue me.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
...also are you just going to jam your head into the sand re: Gabe's multi-stage public apology and donation to pro-trans charity that followed, or are you just focused on a single out of date tweet?
Obama once said he was against gay marriage too; it must still be true.
...also are you just going to jam your head into the sand re: Gabe's multi-stage public apology and donation to pro-trans charity that followed, or are you just focused on a single out of date tweet?
Obama once said he was against gay marriage too; it must still be true.
I was pretty impressed with how Mike handled it. And much to his point in the later front page post, twitter just isn't the place to be having those sorts of discussions.
Anyway it's one thing to to dogpile on a guy who's been educated on why he was wrong and continues to be a jerk, it's entirely another to expect some random guy who has zero experience with the trans community to understand implicitly why he may be wrong, and secondly to understand terminology (e.g. cis) almost exclusive to the insular community going after him.
Mike should take the blowup as a compliment though, as it means he's become an important enough person that people are seeking him out to hear what he's saying. And good on him for being pretty open minded and willing to change.
But making a true statement about something a person did is now libel apparently? Idk. Sue me.
stating that women have vaginas is a completely different thing than denying the existence of transgender people. one can still know transgender people exist and still think that someone who has changed from male to female did so by surgical means to have the "corresponding" genital bits along with the necessary hormone therapies.
this actually highlights something very messed up about the entire situation. i'm for recognizing transgender folks as people. but, at least in the U.S. anyways, we're only now having a critical mass of people who realize that same sex relationships won't destroy society. i don't even think transgender folks are a blip on the radar. and in nations like Russia, there's actually backwards movement in their denying that homosexuality even exists.
was Mike a jerk? sure. he admitted it, apologized for it, and was appreciative when people weren't levying insults and actually explaining why he was wrong. was he espousing some notion that transgender folks don't exist? that's putting the cart before the horse. the bigger problem is, shouldn't we be focused on getting society to recognize what it means to be transgender in the first place? i did not even fully understand the scope of the issue until i started reading about it right here on these forums.
don't compound the problem by blaming someone for something he did not do.
He 'handled it' by saying 'only pussy havers can be women' and then cried that the internet was infringing on his right to free speech, yeah super impressive there. Remember that this was kicked off after he blew off complaints regarding a pax panel about "gee is it ever hard to be a white anglo-saxon male these days, eh guys"
Also very impressive that a millionaire whose job is 'be a gamer for life' has loudly and publicly decided to take some time out of his very busy schedule to read some stuff on the internet after having antagonized tons of people
don't forget the very impressive non-apology where he basically was like 'look I have trans friends! therefore I cannot be transphobic, just haplessly ignorant'
Im sure the implicit/explicit distinction will be highly effective in the upcoming libel case
you know, the way that quotations work is that it has to be a thing the person actually said. Like, word-for-word. That's sort of the whole point! Also no one threatened to sue you, but I see that the things people say doesn't have any effect on your interpretation of their words, which must be really nice.
Tube on
+1
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I, too, am highly offended by things I make up and then imagine people saying.
don't forget the very impressive non-apology where he basically was like 'look I have trans friends! therefore I cannot be transphobic, just haplessly ignorant'
I have feeling for you, no matter what he does, it will never be good enough. If you want trans issues to stay buried and ignored, the attitude and tone of your posts is a surefire way to achieve it.
How is that not a flat denial of the existence of trans women. (Not to mention a crass reduction of femininity to "if vagina then woman else not woman")
I mean are you guys literally defending that statement or are you just upset because I have paraphrased it? A statement can be interpreted and reformulated using different words, without polluting the original meaning.
You would think that after this and the dickwolf thing that PA would take away krahulik's twitter privileges
Azio on
+1
Options
FramlingFaceHeadGeebs has bad ideas.Registered Userregular
I think a lot of people fail to appreciate that not everyone grows up exposed to this kind of thing. People behave as though everyone has already done all the reading, so if someone still acts the wrong way the only explanation is that they're a terrible person and deserve nothing but wrath. But maybe someone like Gabe hasn't been directly exposed to this kind of thing. Maybe they haven't come across that impetus that leads them to reconsider their thinking on something. They don't personally know anyone who has gone through this, or they don't know that they know someone. That's no real fault of their own, but suddenly, they feel like they're under attack for something they don't understand, something that doesn't make sense to them.
And frankly, with a lot of this shit, it tends to feel from the outside like if you say anything without already knowing all the answers, you're going to get smacked down just as hard as if you'd said the wrong thing without thinking about it at all in the first place.
Gabe especially is not the kind of person that's going to react well to being attacked, or even to being approached in a way that feels like being attacked. If you've seen the PATV episode about the process of him finally going on antianxiety meds, you know how he worries about changing who he is. He tends to cling to his own personal status quo, just as a core aspect of his personality. So in a situation like this, he hunkers down, gets defensive. Look how things changed when a friend of his approached him as a friend, and made it clear they were looking to build mutual understanding.
I'm not saying, awww, feel bad for poor Gabe, he doesn't know any better, nobody understands him, don't yell at him. I'm saying yelling at him doesn't work. It will never work. It doesn't change his mind, it only puts more walls up. If you want to change a mind, try to understand that mind. Try to educate that mind. At best, shouting him down only covers up the problem. Maybe you'll convince them to never talk about the issue at all. At worst, it opens the door for resentment to keep simmering under the surface. Gabe is a pretty widely known personality in a community that has a pretty lousy track record with dealing with issues of race and gender. He's in a position to do a lot of good in those terms. He would make a more useful ally than adversary.
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
+4
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
don't forget the very impressive non-apology where he basically was like 'look I have trans friends! therefore I cannot be transphobic, just haplessly ignorant'
I have feeling for you, no matter what he does, it will never be good enough. If you want trans issues to stay buried and ignored, the attitude and tone of your posts is a surefire way to achieve it.
I can't wait to hear how the $20k to the Trevor Project actually makes it worse and by doing so Gabe elevated his status to Mecha-Hitler.
How is that not a flat denial of the existence of trans women. (Not to mention a crass reduction of femininity to "if vagina then woman else not woman")
Not acknowledging trans women is a far cry from denying they exist. I think for both Mike and myself, it's not something we've ever had any experience with; exactly how would we know?
Anyway, you're not paraphrasing. You're taking Mike's original words and adding purposefully inflammatory rhetoric into them. Which is a pretty shitty thing to do. You're trying to make him into this horrible monster who really just made an ignorant mistake. A mistake I would have made too.
I guess I understand your anger. But the things you've said in this thread alone are far meaner in spirit than anything Mike said to begin with. Do you understand that you've basically become that which you claim to despise?
How is that not a flat denial of the existence of trans women. (Not to mention a crass reduction of femininity to "if vagina then woman else not woman")
I mean are you guys literally defending that statement or are you just upset because I have paraphrased it? A statement can be interpreted and reformulated using different words, without polluting the original meaning.
i'm not defending the statement, but i can see where it's coming from because, quite bluntly, i thought the same exact thing 5 years ago.
let's step back a bit. remember that society is just grasping the idea that homosexuality is maybe alright. that same society which employs biology textbooks and ingrained societal mores to instill the notion that humanity is sexually dimorphous and that anything deviating from that is "weird" or "freaky".
in that context, a guy like Mike, from a probably sheltered whitebread Seattle family, who does cartooning about video games for a living, probably comes from the kind of "mainstream" background that says "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". this is not to insult him either, but that's the perspective.
in that worldview, it probably didn't occur to Mike that saying something like all women have vaginas by definition was even remotely degrading or insulting. and if you can objectively consider it, that is not surprising. sexuality and gender are not as immediately obvious as things like race, disability, or the like. and the science and medicine behind transgender identities and biology is cutting edge. it is literally something that did not exist to the mainstream world 10 to 15 years ago.
so step back a bit. Mike was not making some kind of hateful categorical statement a la Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. he was stating something that for a lot of US is a "common sense" notion that is only now starting to change. he was also not saying it with the idea of being on a soapbox (or a TV show) trying to propagate a discriminatory world view. he was stating a personal opinion on Twitter, in a conversation limited by 140 characters.
You would think that after this and the dickwolf thing that PA would take away krahulik's twitter privileges
on this we can agree. but i'll put it out there that Twitter is a horrible form of communication for things that require detail, nuance, and a distinct lack of readiness to shout at other people. so, basically, Twitter sucks for communicating anything, save maybe what a person ate for lunch or whether there's a line for the Homestuck panel at at a con.
last thing: people are way too entirely ready to be angry without actually stopping for a bit and breaking down the situation. the internet makes that worse. blind anger without chewing the issue a bit just leads to useless drama, not movement forward.
How is that not a flat denial of the existence of trans women. (Not to mention a crass reduction of femininity to "if vagina then woman else not woman")
I mean are you guys literally defending that statement or are you just upset because I have paraphrased it? A statement can be interpreted and reformulated using different words, without polluting the original meaning.
He's just now being forced to think on the concept that there are people who don't identify with the gender they were originally assigned and how to treat them. It's an idea that's probably very new to him and likely does fly in the face of everything he thought he knew for the last few decades. It'd be unrealistic for him to change what's generally a very fixed world view over the course of a few days and yeah, there are worse ways to react to being told you're wrong than "I still really can't see it that way personally but I'm really sorry I acted the way I did and here's twenty thousand dollars in support."
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited June 2013
You know, for all the talk about Gabes apology and such it seems some people here haven't actually seen it in this discussion. It's worth pointing out in this thread:
Okay let’s talk about what happened yesterday.
I woke up yesterday to some angry emails and tweets about a panel at PAX Aus. The panel is going to be a discussion about all the social justice stuff happening in the games industry and if it is making for better games. It’s important to know that all panels are submitted by the community and we try and give anyone who wants a place to speak the space to do it. I responded that you don’t have to go to any panels you don’t like or alternatively you could go and tell them what you think.
I was called a bigot and told that I was giving a stage to bigots. I had not even had breakfast yet. I said again that if they have a different opinion they are welcome to submit their own panel. I was then called “cis male garbage”. Someone then tweeted at me that I should die.
I should have walked away from my computer at this point and played with my dog but instead I put on my asshole hat and went to work. I said if you use the word “cis” don’t bother tweeting me. This brought back another twitter argument from a week or so ago in which I defended a game about female masturbation. This game only included vaginas which I thought was reasonable given the point of the game was to teach women how to masturbate. It was pointed out to me that not all women have vaginas and I will admit right here in front of everyone that this came as a big shock to me. Some people called the game exclusionary because it did not take into account the existence of transexuals. I said I think a game about female masturbation that only has vaginas made sense because women have vaginas and men have a penis. This was not meant to invalidate the trans community but I was told it did. I apologized but I was labeled “transphobic” and so when all this stuff came up yesterday I think it was just more fuel to the fire. I was super pissed yesterday. I was called a bigot and I think if I wasn’t pissed that would probably be bad. The thing is I wasn’t mad at trans people or gay people or whatever. I’m not going to go into the intricacies of my family here on twitter but being called a bigot really bothers me. I was mad at the assholes who have no fucking idea who I am but when you go hard on twitter plenty of innocent people get caught in the crossfire. I’m very good at being a jerk. It’s sort if my superpower. When it comes to Penny Arcade it has served me well but it’s not okay when I make a bunch of people who are already marginalized feel like shit.
I hate lots of people it’s true. But I’ve never hated anyone for their sexual orientation or their gender situation. I don’t hate people for superficial shit like that. I hate people for the way they act and I intend to keep doing that. It’s a very strange position to be in. This massive organization has built up around my friend Jerry and I. I know personally I’m an incredibly damaged individual. I’m not really sure I’m the best foundation for all this other stuff. I don’t want to be the reason people don’t go to PAX or don’t support Child’s Play or don’t watch the shows on PATV. I hate the idea that because I can’t stop being an asshole I hurt all these other amazing things.
I’m very sorry about yesterday. There are very few things that someone can say to me that will actually make me lose my temper. All my buttons got pushed yesterday though and I snapped. I doubt that will change anyone’s opinion but there you go. I’m not qualified to talk about the ambiguity of sexuality and frankly I don’t give a shit about it. I like drawing comics and playing video games. I’ll keep my mouth shut when it comes to all the other stuff.
And then he followed it up with,
I’ve spent the last few days trying to apologize to people I hurt. I’ve been doing it via email and I’ve given out my phone number a lot. I realize I was wrong and I’m genuinely sorry. I also realize I can’t possibly apologize on the phone to each and every person I hurt. I’m going to keep trying, but I’ve also decided to personally make a donation to the Trevor Project of $20,000.00. I also plan to keep interacting with people on a personal level and I understand that will be an ongoing process. In the meantime I’m hoping this donation will do some real good for a group that desperately needs it.
So I honestly cannot understand how anyone can possibly claim this is not a genuine apology or an actual indication of interest to move dialog forward/understand what people were saying. You just can't read these statements any other way to me.
Man, This whole discussion blew right past my head. I'm not exactly sure why though?
I think its mostly because suddenly i've become aware that being "cis" is actually a thing people argue about? I didn't even know the word until a couple of months ago.
I was always under the impression you were a guy or a girl. I'm not saying I'm not aware of Transexuals, I know a few of them, Its more that I wasn't aware that there was an actual discussion going around Where your gender actually had some kind of "status",( maybe Hierarchy is a better word, but mostly worst for all the reasons the debate i'm baffled about actually exist) In that there is a scale in "guyness" or "girlness".
I don't know, i'm baffled. Why is this actually an issue? Why does the word Cis actually exist?
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to portray myself as some-kind of lenient accepting angel that doesn't understand that there's still a debate about the right of trans people, because i understand that its there. But I don't fully understand the need to create Another distinction.
I feel like the need for the word cis - stems from the fact; being a guy from birth is normal. Does that mean that me? as a transexual am not normal? Heck no!(and rightly so). and thus i'll make another distinction.
I reckon my main problem or well dissonance, stems from the need to characterize people. Like: Gay, trans, hispanic, republican, christian. Why completely reduce the persons you're arguing with to that one aspect of their being? As if being me, is simply: Straight white male. and that's all i am, and you can thus validate me by those three terms, for better or for worse. I'm not saying those attributes aren't important to some discussions: I.e: who are you attracted to, what colour was the skin of the guy who robbed your house so we can track him down sooner, what did you vote for?
But they are completely useless when discussing; Value. As every disenfranchised/discriminated group damn well knows, because it affects them daily.
and in that regards, why create even more labels to disregard people as?
man, that's a lot of words for something I don't comprehend...But, then i'll just stick with thinking people are a boy or a girl, and if they're the other thing, and i'm mistaken well, i'll just switch, instead of adding three more words.
So I honestly cannot understand how anyone can possibly claim this is not a genuine apology or an actual indication of interest to move dialog forward/understand what people were saying. You just can't read these statements any other way to me.
After reading most of the posts, I have come to the conclusion that it's because the people agressively arguing aren't in it for social edification or championing the oppressed. They're here to argue. They're here to incite. They're here because they want to make Gabe pay.They don't care about his apology, only that he said something kind of mean that one time.
That's it. Nothing else.
At worst, the tweet posted here only reveals Gabe's thought process and natural (and legitimate!) assumptions in a very snide, poorly thought out way. In no way does it prove he's a bigot or anything else except an ignorant, quick-tempered asshole, and he's already admitted to that multiple times over the years.
Now, if you've gotten this far without passing out from rage, let me explain what I mean by "natural and legitimate assumptions". A quick look on Google brought up a study in 2011 that says 0.3% of adults in the U.S. are "transgender". For the sake of argument, lets boost that number to a full 1% to include minors and a nice margin of error.
If 1 in 100 people you see on the street are transgender, those are still some pretty good odds to assume any person you come across that identifies as a "woman" has a vagina and not a penis. Right now, the statistics don't justify completely changing my basic assumptions about the genitalia or gender association of every person I meet. That number would be something like 10-20%. They are, however, good enough to cause me to be aware that transgender people do exist (if I cared to learn), and that I do have a chance of coming across a few in my lifetime. But for anyone who identifies as a "woman" to be upset or offended that I would assume he/she has a vagina and not a penis is utterly ludicrous. Here's an illustration:
The Porsche 911 is a rear-engine, rear-wheel drive car. It has always been that way, and anyone who knows about the car knows that. However, what if some people (1% of all 911 owners) were uncomfortable with that setup, and they converted the car to a front-engine, front-wheel drive system (which, by the way, is the exact opposite of how the car comes off the line)? Would I be wrong or bigoted to see a 911 and assume it was still rear-engine, RWD? Of course not, because the chances are very, very good that it is; and any owner of the modified car would have to be a moron to get offended at my assumption.
Another example:
If a person came up to me and identified as a "vegan", I would assume that means he refrains from eating things like meat (including fish and eggs) and milk. How absurd would it then be if I asked how that diet has worked out for him, and he got upset that I assumed he didn't drink milk and eat eggs. Would I be a bigot to reply that "being a vegan" traditionally implies what I assumed? Of course not; but it WOULD be bigoted of me to insist that he was not a "true vegan" because of those those exceptions, and was therefore inferior and should stop calling himself a vegan. Why would I care, anyway?
Clearly, not all people who identify as "women" have vaginae, and if Gabe didn't know that, so be it. And while I'm very surprised he hasn't seen "tranny porn" (perhaps at Tycho's suggestion?), I'm willing to take his word on that- especially considering how apologetic he's been. Clearly, he has acknowledged he was in the wrong. Conversation over.
Honestly, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked, yet.
So I honestly cannot understand how anyone can possibly claim this is not a genuine apology or an actual indication of interest to move dialog forward/understand what people were saying. You just can't read these statements any other way to me.
From my perspective: The follow up was genuine and a good one. The original apology was a somewhat insulting one.
The first apology was one of those "I'm sorry you were offended" type apologies and was kind of shitty. Especially as it contained the line "frankly I don’t give a shit". It also had the classic "I'm not a bigot" (implying* that therefore nothing he says could be bigoted) excuse.
Again his follow-up apology was much, much better. But following on the heels of the shitty apology, Gabe has more ground to make up with some people than he would otherwise. Thus I completely understand anyone being unable to accept the good apology.
*
I can't believe I used infer when I meant imply. I should be shot.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+3
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The thing that confuses me about the whole situation is why the existence of this is what apparently caused massive outrage.
It had to do with the way the panel was originally worded:
Why does the game industry garner such scrutiny from outside sources and within? Every point aberration gets called into question, reviewers are constantly criticised and developers and publishers professionally and personally attacked. Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic and involve any antagonist race other than Anglo-Saxons and you’re a racist.
It’s gone too far and when will it all end? How can we get off the soapbox and work together to bring a new constructive age into fruition?
Which sounds rather awfully as a whine about how hard it is to be a white man with all these unreasonable women and minorities around insisting on representation in games.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The thing that confuses me about the whole situation is why the existence of this is what apparently caused massive outrage.
It had to do with the way the panel was originally worded:
Why does the game industry garner such scrutiny from outside sources and within? Every point aberration gets called into question, reviewers are constantly criticised and developers and publishers professionally and personally attacked. Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic and involve any antagonist race other than Anglo-Saxons and you’re a racist.
It’s gone too far and when will it all end? How can we get off the soapbox and work together to bring a new constructive age into fruition?
Which sounds rather awfully as a whine about how hard it is to be a white man with all these unreasonable women and minorities around insisting on representation in games.
I'm assuming PA doesn't claim editorial control over panel selection? Because ugh, that is clear troll bait.
Man, This whole discussion blew right past my head. I'm not exactly sure why though?
I think its mostly because suddenly i've become aware that being "cis" is actually a thing people argue about? I didn't even know the word until a couple of months ago.
I was always under the impression you were a guy or a girl. I'm not saying I'm not aware of Transexuals, I know a few of them, Its more that I wasn't aware that there was an actual discussion going around Where your gender actually had some kind of "status",( maybe Hierarchy is a better word, but mostly worst for all the reasons the debate i'm baffled about actually exist) In that there is a scale in "guyness" or "girlness".
I don't know, i'm baffled. Why is this actually an issue? Why does the word Cis actually exist?
Because it describes reality. You're talking about how you're just starting to learn these things: that's great, learn them! Don't fight back against a word like "cisgendered" that describes (fairly accurately) a certain category of people. We use words and concepts to pick out things about the world so that we can talk about them. Before "cisgendered" was an accepted term, at least in the context of our current, modern society, it was very difficult to talk about a lot of transgender issues because the terminology was funky.
Man, This whole discussion blew right past my head. I'm not exactly sure why though?
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to portray myself as some-kind of lenient accepting angel that doesn't understand that there's still a debate about the right of trans people, because i understand that its there. But I don't fully understand the need to create Another distinction.
Basically, what you want to do is read and learn about gender, sexuality, transgendered people, and so on until you understand what work the distinction is doing. It's not a useless one that people made up because making up words is a lot of fun. It's actually a very useful distinction that already existed - "cisgendered" is just a word to describe it. So really, people who use the term "cisgendered" are not "creating another distinction," they are creating a word to describe a distinction that already exists.
I feel like the need for the word cis - stems from the fact; being a guy from birth is normal. Does that mean that me? as a transexual am not normal? Heck no!(and rightly so). and thus i'll make another distinction.
Being a guy from birth isn't really "normal" for the majority of the human race, actually. But in any case, you seem to be getting at another reason why "cisgendered" is a useful term: it often shocks people into realizing that what they take for granted in their lives actually isn't the only way things can be. "White straight Christian male" is, or perhaps was, the assumed "person" that society has had in mind for hundreds of years when it thinks about things. Issues are framed in terms of how they affect white straight men, and only deviantly are they discussed in terms of how other people have to deal with them. This sort of thing is damaging because there are more people than white straight Christian men out there and our society is for all of us.
I reckon my main problem or well dissonance, stems from the need to characterize people. Like: Gay, trans, hispanic, republican, christian. Why completely reduce the persons you're arguing with to that one aspect of their being?
This is not what terms need to do - they do not "reduce" people. They pick out characteristics of people. If I say that I am tall (I am) or skinny (I am) this doesn't reduce me to one aspect of my being unless I'm talking to a goldfish with a short memory span that can't also remember that, as I say this, I am a male and so on.
As if being me, is simply: Straight white male. and that's all i am, and you can thus validate me by those three terms, for better or for worse. I'm not saying those attributes aren't important to some discussions: I.e: who are you attracted to, what colour was the skin of the guy who robbed your house so we can track him down sooner, what did you vote for?
But they are completely useless when discussing; Value. As every disenfranchised/discriminated group damn well knows, because it affects them daily.
If you think these terms are useless when discussing value, then fine, only use them to discuss something like sexuality, which is what we need a term like "cisgendered" to discuss.
man, that's a lot of words for something I don't comprehend...But, then i'll just stick with thinking people are a boy or a girl, and if they're the other thing, and i'm mistaken well, i'll just switch, instead of adding three more words.
If you can switch without more words, go ahead! It's very clunky, though. You will find yourself using a sentence where a word ("cisgendered") would do, solely because you have this silly idea that describing someone in a word rather than a sentence magically reduces them to nothing.
Labels are not a bad thing. Labels can be used badly but they are not necessarily bad.
+4
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Ah, I didn't realize the text on the page had changed.
Edit: As it's stated now, it seems like a reasonable thing to have a discussion about and not want to burn down upside-down PAX.
Does it? Just because they changed the original wording, the fact that it was ever there suggests that this is really an excuse to talk about how uppity minorities are getting.
But even if it isn't, even if this is a complete sincere wish to discuss the way criticism is ruining the games industry: is that really a premise from which adults want to have a discussion? Criticism is necessary to real art. The wish for criticism to end is, at best, an immature one.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
But even if it isn't, even if this is a complete sincere wish to discuss the way criticism is ruining the games industry: is that really a premise from which adults want to have a discussion? Criticism is necessary to real art. The wish for criticism to end is, at best, an immature one.
But even if it isn't, even if this is a complete sincere wish to discuss the way criticism is ruining the games industry: is that really a premise from which adults want to have a discussion? Criticism is necessary to real art. The wish for criticism to end is, at best, an immature one.
I didn't see that stated in the overview.
The overview literally says that there might too much scrutiny on the gaming industry and that too many people criticize writers, developers, and publishers.
There's only one word in the entire panel description that suggests this panel is anything other than a "please stop saying we do anything wrong" panel, and that word is "personally" - the panel notes developers and publishers are criticized not just professionally but personally.
Now, personally (hah) I think this is a funny issue to have about the game industry because the people who get the most "personal" shit aren't developers - it's women and minorities who speak out about how the gaming community is to them - and the shift the panel's description went through suggests it started life as a bunch of people who wanted to whine back at the women and gays and so on for ruining the fun. But, whatever. Let's disregard that and just talk about the (admittedly bad) personal criticism that developers and publishers get for making shitty games - harassment like the stuff this comic which says Microsoft has put an "evil camera" in their console and generally hates us, or this one which suggests Microsoft allows poisonous snakes into their press conferences, or this one which paints the developers of Titan as fucking idiots, or this one which calls someone both "Satan" and "a menace" that "must be stopped" and so on. Is all this bad? Well I'm inclined to say suck it up and deal with it but whatever. Let's have a whole panel about whether this stuff needs to stop and we all need to get along so gaming can enter a golden age.
But that's only if you imagine the entire panel is going to be about the "personal" stuff, which is reading a lot into that one word. As far as I can tell, the description of the panel looks like it says "we don't like people criticizing our work, even when it's shitty. Games should be fun, why can't review scores all be 10 out of 10?"
+3
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Ah, I didn't realize the text on the page had changed.
Edit: As it's stated now, it seems like a reasonable thing to have a discussion about and not want to burn down upside-down PAX.
Does it? Just because they changed the original wording, the fact that it was ever there suggests that this is really an excuse to talk about how uppity minorities are getting.
But even if it isn't, even if this is a complete sincere wish to discuss the way criticism is ruining the games industry: is that really a premise from which adults want to have a discussion? Criticism is necessary to real art. The wish for criticism to end is, at best, an immature one.
Plus the whole "aren't games supposed to be FUN?!" wording is like, a biscuit away from "What's the big deal?", the constant refrain of privilege-denial.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Ironically, the worst personal attack towards a developer that I can recall in recent years was the intense harassment campaign that went on against Jennifer Hepler of Bioware, and this was at least in part because of her promotion of LGBT characters.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Because it describes reality. You're talking about how you're just starting to learn these things: that's great, learn them! Don't fight back against a word like "cisgendered" that describes (fairly accurately) a certain category of people. We use words and concepts to pick out things about the world so that we can talk about them. Before "cisgendered" was an accepted term, at least in the context of our current, modern society, it was very difficult to talk about a lot of transgender issues because the terminology was funky.
Well, I'd do a multi-quote thing, but that makes post just unreadable. Fyi. I'm not just starting to learn about these things, i'm just starting to learn that its actually a huge source of "debate" in a different part of the world, that considers itself modern apparently... The debate itself is what's strange to me, not the thing that's being debated.
thanks for some form of answer atleast, I reckon it then slightly comes down to a cultural thing, or maybe its just me, but I never had my word view blown away because there are other situations, heck i'm well aware of that. I just remember reading the news i think it was three years ago(maybe 2), where they changed the law in my country, where people could change their legal gender without actually getting an operation, and i was like: Yeah, that sounds damn reasonable, why didn't we have that before?
Sure, I can see the benefit in having a simple word for cis, when discussing it, but to then turn that word around and say: cis-scum, i,e you're scum because you're cis, and thus are a hater on trans, Is reducing people(I'm using this example because it is in the thread, and i'm making the same argument for every other character aspect people have that is used in this way). These words in these arguments are used to reduce people into a stereotypical argument, i dont know which one, since i've never met any of the actual stereotypes, and that just continues to baffle me. As I said maybe it is a cultural thing, maybe it is just me.
But even if it isn't, even if this is a complete sincere wish to discuss the way criticism is ruining the games industry: is that really a premise from which adults want to have a discussion? Criticism is necessary to real art. The wish for criticism to end is, at best, an immature one.
I didn't see that stated in the overview.
The overview literally says that there might too much scrutiny on the gaming industry and that too many people criticize writers, developers, and publishers.
There's only one word in the entire panel description that suggests this panel is anything other than a "please stop saying we do anything wrong" panel, and that word is "personally" - the panel notes developers and publishers are criticized not just professionally but personally.
Now, personally (hah) I think this is a funny issue to have about the game industry because the people who get the most "personal" shit aren't developers - it's women and minorities who speak out about how the gaming community is to them - and the shift the panel's description went through suggests it started life as a bunch of people who wanted to whine back at the women and gays and so on for ruining the fun. But, whatever. Let's disregard that and just talk about the (admittedly bad) personal criticism that developers and publishers get for making shitty games - harassment like the stuff this comic which says Microsoft has put an "evil camera" in their console and generally hates us, or this one which suggests Microsoft allows poisonous snakes into their press conferences, or this one which paints the developers of Titan as fucking idiots, or this one which calls someone both "Satan" and "a menace" that "must be stopped" and so on. Is all this bad? Well I'm inclined to say suck it up and deal with it but whatever. Let's have a whole panel about whether this stuff needs to stop and we all need to get along so gaming can enter a golden age.
But that's only if you imagine the entire panel is going to be about the "personal" stuff, which is reading a lot into that one word. As far as I can tell, the description of the panel looks like it says "we don't like people criticizing our work, even when it's shitty. Games should be fun, why can't review scores all be 10 out of 10?"
Alright, here's the thing. I agree with you that the panel sounds like a bunch of people wanting the hate to go away. However the extent to which developers and people in the companies developing games get completely inappropriate criticism is not something that they need to "just deal with".
There is not a person on this Earth who should be getting death threats against themselves or their family for writing the ending for Mass Effect 3, but guess what!
There's not a gaming reporter out there who needs to get emails saying (well, I'll let you read it in the article above)
So, yeah. The panel sounds like people are getting together to want people to stop criticizing their games. But, seriously, people need to back off the keyboards and stop sending death threats to the people who write games, and there needs to be a massive outreach by developers, journalists and more importantly gamers to tell people it's not cool to say you're going to rape someone for making the "Tropes VS. Women in Video Games" videos.
Ironically, the worst personal attack towards a developer that I can recall in recent years was the intense harassment campaign that went on against Jennifer Hepler of Bioware, and this was at least in part because of her promotion of LGBT characters.
And the other, much more vocal and prevalent part was that the people attacking her thought she wasn't attractive. When you google her name, you don't get people saying she was looking to get LGBT characters in games, or more importantly how she wanted to make games you didn't have to have long drawn out combat sequences to get through to the next story bit. Instead you get people, and images, commenting on her appearance.
It's pretty well covered in this rather terribly named article. http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-writer-s-vagina-versus-the-internet-222206.phtml
Dedwrekka on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
That sounds like a very generous interpretation of the summary. Here's hoping that's what the panel will actually be about.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
That sounds like a very generous interpretation of the summary. Here's hoping that's what the panel will actually be about.
No, I don't think the panel is about that at all. I think it's going to be people talking about how the criticism of their games needs to evaporate.
But it should be about what I typed about in that post.
Posts
He plainly has,
But making a true statement about something a person did is now libel apparently? Idk. Sue me.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explicit
Obama once said he was against gay marriage too; it must still be true.
I was pretty impressed with how Mike handled it. And much to his point in the later front page post, twitter just isn't the place to be having those sorts of discussions.
Anyway it's one thing to to dogpile on a guy who's been educated on why he was wrong and continues to be a jerk, it's entirely another to expect some random guy who has zero experience with the trans community to understand implicitly why he may be wrong, and secondly to understand terminology (e.g. cis) almost exclusive to the insular community going after him.
Mike should take the blowup as a compliment though, as it means he's become an important enough person that people are seeking him out to hear what he's saying. And good on him for being pretty open minded and willing to change.
stating that women have vaginas is a completely different thing than denying the existence of transgender people. one can still know transgender people exist and still think that someone who has changed from male to female did so by surgical means to have the "corresponding" genital bits along with the necessary hormone therapies.
this actually highlights something very messed up about the entire situation. i'm for recognizing transgender folks as people. but, at least in the U.S. anyways, we're only now having a critical mass of people who realize that same sex relationships won't destroy society. i don't even think transgender folks are a blip on the radar. and in nations like Russia, there's actually backwards movement in their denying that homosexuality even exists.
was Mike a jerk? sure. he admitted it, apologized for it, and was appreciative when people weren't levying insults and actually explaining why he was wrong. was he espousing some notion that transgender folks don't exist? that's putting the cart before the horse. the bigger problem is, shouldn't we be focused on getting society to recognize what it means to be transgender in the first place? i did not even fully understand the scope of the issue until i started reading about it right here on these forums.
don't compound the problem by blaming someone for something he did not do.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Also very impressive that a millionaire whose job is 'be a gamer for life' has loudly and publicly decided to take some time out of his very busy schedule to read some stuff on the internet after having antagonized tons of people
don't forget the very impressive non-apology where he basically was like 'look I have trans friends! therefore I cannot be transphobic, just haplessly ignorant'
Im sure the implicit/explicit distinction will be highly effective in the upcoming libel case
I have feeling for you, no matter what he does, it will never be good enough. If you want trans issues to stay buried and ignored, the attitude and tone of your posts is a surefire way to achieve it.
I mean are you guys literally defending that statement or are you just upset because I have paraphrased it? A statement can be interpreted and reformulated using different words, without polluting the original meaning.
You would think that after this and the dickwolf thing that PA would take away krahulik's twitter privileges
And frankly, with a lot of this shit, it tends to feel from the outside like if you say anything without already knowing all the answers, you're going to get smacked down just as hard as if you'd said the wrong thing without thinking about it at all in the first place.
Gabe especially is not the kind of person that's going to react well to being attacked, or even to being approached in a way that feels like being attacked. If you've seen the PATV episode about the process of him finally going on antianxiety meds, you know how he worries about changing who he is. He tends to cling to his own personal status quo, just as a core aspect of his personality. So in a situation like this, he hunkers down, gets defensive. Look how things changed when a friend of his approached him as a friend, and made it clear they were looking to build mutual understanding.
I'm not saying, awww, feel bad for poor Gabe, he doesn't know any better, nobody understands him, don't yell at him. I'm saying yelling at him doesn't work. It will never work. It doesn't change his mind, it only puts more walls up. If you want to change a mind, try to understand that mind. Try to educate that mind. At best, shouting him down only covers up the problem. Maybe you'll convince them to never talk about the issue at all. At worst, it opens the door for resentment to keep simmering under the surface. Gabe is a pretty widely known personality in a community that has a pretty lousy track record with dealing with issues of race and gender. He's in a position to do a lot of good in those terms. He would make a more useful ally than adversary.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
I can't wait to hear how the $20k to the Trevor Project actually makes it worse and by doing so Gabe elevated his status to Mecha-Hitler.
Not acknowledging trans women is a far cry from denying they exist. I think for both Mike and myself, it's not something we've ever had any experience with; exactly how would we know?
Anyway, you're not paraphrasing. You're taking Mike's original words and adding purposefully inflammatory rhetoric into them. Which is a pretty shitty thing to do. You're trying to make him into this horrible monster who really just made an ignorant mistake. A mistake I would have made too.
I guess I understand your anger. But the things you've said in this thread alone are far meaner in spirit than anything Mike said to begin with. Do you understand that you've basically become that which you claim to despise?
i'm not defending the statement, but i can see where it's coming from because, quite bluntly, i thought the same exact thing 5 years ago.
let's step back a bit. remember that society is just grasping the idea that homosexuality is maybe alright. that same society which employs biology textbooks and ingrained societal mores to instill the notion that humanity is sexually dimorphous and that anything deviating from that is "weird" or "freaky".
in that context, a guy like Mike, from a probably sheltered whitebread Seattle family, who does cartooning about video games for a living, probably comes from the kind of "mainstream" background that says "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". this is not to insult him either, but that's the perspective.
in that worldview, it probably didn't occur to Mike that saying something like all women have vaginas by definition was even remotely degrading or insulting. and if you can objectively consider it, that is not surprising. sexuality and gender are not as immediately obvious as things like race, disability, or the like. and the science and medicine behind transgender identities and biology is cutting edge. it is literally something that did not exist to the mainstream world 10 to 15 years ago.
so step back a bit. Mike was not making some kind of hateful categorical statement a la Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. he was stating something that for a lot of US is a "common sense" notion that is only now starting to change. he was also not saying it with the idea of being on a soapbox (or a TV show) trying to propagate a discriminatory world view. he was stating a personal opinion on Twitter, in a conversation limited by 140 characters.
on this we can agree. but i'll put it out there that Twitter is a horrible form of communication for things that require detail, nuance, and a distinct lack of readiness to shout at other people. so, basically, Twitter sucks for communicating anything, save maybe what a person ate for lunch or whether there's a line for the Homestuck panel at at a con.
last thing: people are way too entirely ready to be angry without actually stopping for a bit and breaking down the situation. the internet makes that worse. blind anger without chewing the issue a bit just leads to useless drama, not movement forward.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
And then he followed it up with,
So I honestly cannot understand how anyone can possibly claim this is not a genuine apology or an actual indication of interest to move dialog forward/understand what people were saying. You just can't read these statements any other way to me.
I think its mostly because suddenly i've become aware that being "cis" is actually a thing people argue about? I didn't even know the word until a couple of months ago.
I was always under the impression you were a guy or a girl. I'm not saying I'm not aware of Transexuals, I know a few of them, Its more that I wasn't aware that there was an actual discussion going around Where your gender actually had some kind of "status",( maybe Hierarchy is a better word, but mostly worst for all the reasons the debate i'm baffled about actually exist) In that there is a scale in "guyness" or "girlness".
I don't know, i'm baffled. Why is this actually an issue? Why does the word Cis actually exist?
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to portray myself as some-kind of lenient accepting angel that doesn't understand that there's still a debate about the right of trans people, because i understand that its there. But I don't fully understand the need to create Another distinction.
I feel like the need for the word cis - stems from the fact; being a guy from birth is normal. Does that mean that me? as a transexual am not normal? Heck no!(and rightly so). and thus i'll make another distinction.
I reckon my main problem or well dissonance, stems from the need to characterize people. Like: Gay, trans, hispanic, republican, christian. Why completely reduce the persons you're arguing with to that one aspect of their being? As if being me, is simply: Straight white male. and that's all i am, and you can thus validate me by those three terms, for better or for worse. I'm not saying those attributes aren't important to some discussions: I.e: who are you attracted to, what colour was the skin of the guy who robbed your house so we can track him down sooner, what did you vote for?
But they are completely useless when discussing; Value. As every disenfranchised/discriminated group damn well knows, because it affects them daily.
and in that regards, why create even more labels to disregard people as?
man, that's a lot of words for something I don't comprehend...But, then i'll just stick with thinking people are a boy or a girl, and if they're the other thing, and i'm mistaken well, i'll just switch, instead of adding three more words.
How dare you call me a chuwero!
That's it. Nothing else.
At worst, the tweet posted here only reveals Gabe's thought process and natural (and legitimate!) assumptions in a very snide, poorly thought out way. In no way does it prove he's a bigot or anything else except an ignorant, quick-tempered asshole, and he's already admitted to that multiple times over the years.
Now, if you've gotten this far without passing out from rage, let me explain what I mean by "natural and legitimate assumptions". A quick look on Google brought up a study in 2011 that says 0.3% of adults in the U.S. are "transgender". For the sake of argument, lets boost that number to a full 1% to include minors and a nice margin of error.
If 1 in 100 people you see on the street are transgender, those are still some pretty good odds to assume any person you come across that identifies as a "woman" has a vagina and not a penis. Right now, the statistics don't justify completely changing my basic assumptions about the genitalia or gender association of every person I meet. That number would be something like 10-20%. They are, however, good enough to cause me to be aware that transgender people do exist (if I cared to learn), and that I do have a chance of coming across a few in my lifetime. But for anyone who identifies as a "woman" to be upset or offended that I would assume he/she has a vagina and not a penis is utterly ludicrous. Here's an illustration:
The Porsche 911 is a rear-engine, rear-wheel drive car. It has always been that way, and anyone who knows about the car knows that. However, what if some people (1% of all 911 owners) were uncomfortable with that setup, and they converted the car to a front-engine, front-wheel drive system (which, by the way, is the exact opposite of how the car comes off the line)? Would I be wrong or bigoted to see a 911 and assume it was still rear-engine, RWD? Of course not, because the chances are very, very good that it is; and any owner of the modified car would have to be a moron to get offended at my assumption.
Another example:
If a person came up to me and identified as a "vegan", I would assume that means he refrains from eating things like meat (including fish and eggs) and milk. How absurd would it then be if I asked how that diet has worked out for him, and he got upset that I assumed he didn't drink milk and eat eggs. Would I be a bigot to reply that "being a vegan" traditionally implies what I assumed? Of course not; but it WOULD be bigoted of me to insist that he was not a "true vegan" because of those those exceptions, and was therefore inferior and should stop calling himself a vegan. Why would I care, anyway?
Clearly, not all people who identify as "women" have vaginae, and if Gabe didn't know that, so be it. And while I'm very surprised he hasn't seen "tranny porn" (perhaps at Tycho's suggestion?), I'm willing to take his word on that- especially considering how apologetic he's been. Clearly, he has acknowledged he was in the wrong. Conversation over.
Honestly, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked, yet.
You know what you did. I stand by what my imaginary self could have said.
tl;dr: Gender isn't binary.
From my perspective: The follow up was genuine and a good one. The original apology was a somewhat insulting one.
The first apology was one of those "I'm sorry you were offended" type apologies and was kind of shitty. Especially as it contained the line "frankly I don’t give a shit". It also had the classic "I'm not a bigot" (implying* that therefore nothing he says could be bigoted) excuse.
Again his follow-up apology was much, much better. But following on the heels of the shitty apology, Gabe has more ground to make up with some people than he would otherwise. Thus I completely understand anyone being unable to accept the good apology.
*
It had to do with the way the panel was originally worded:
Which sounds rather awfully as a whine about how hard it is to be a white man with all these unreasonable women and minorities around insisting on representation in games.
I'm assuming PA doesn't claim editorial control over panel selection? Because ugh, that is clear troll bait.
Edit: As it's stated now, it seems like a reasonable thing to have a discussion about and not want to burn down upside-down PAX.
Being a guy from birth isn't really "normal" for the majority of the human race, actually. But in any case, you seem to be getting at another reason why "cisgendered" is a useful term: it often shocks people into realizing that what they take for granted in their lives actually isn't the only way things can be. "White straight Christian male" is, or perhaps was, the assumed "person" that society has had in mind for hundreds of years when it thinks about things. Issues are framed in terms of how they affect white straight men, and only deviantly are they discussed in terms of how other people have to deal with them. This sort of thing is damaging because there are more people than white straight Christian men out there and our society is for all of us.
This is not what terms need to do - they do not "reduce" people. They pick out characteristics of people. If I say that I am tall (I am) or skinny (I am) this doesn't reduce me to one aspect of my being unless I'm talking to a goldfish with a short memory span that can't also remember that, as I say this, I am a male and so on.
If you think these terms are useless when discussing value, then fine, only use them to discuss something like sexuality, which is what we need a term like "cisgendered" to discuss.
Because the ideas already exist, and we need to give voice to them to understand them.
If you can switch without more words, go ahead! It's very clunky, though. You will find yourself using a sentence where a word ("cisgendered") would do, solely because you have this silly idea that describing someone in a word rather than a sentence magically reduces them to nothing.
Labels are not a bad thing. Labels can be used badly but they are not necessarily bad.
Does it? Just because they changed the original wording, the fact that it was ever there suggests that this is really an excuse to talk about how uppity minorities are getting.
But even if it isn't, even if this is a complete sincere wish to discuss the way criticism is ruining the games industry: is that really a premise from which adults want to have a discussion? Criticism is necessary to real art. The wish for criticism to end is, at best, an immature one.
There's only one word in the entire panel description that suggests this panel is anything other than a "please stop saying we do anything wrong" panel, and that word is "personally" - the panel notes developers and publishers are criticized not just professionally but personally.
Now, personally (hah) I think this is a funny issue to have about the game industry because the people who get the most "personal" shit aren't developers - it's women and minorities who speak out about how the gaming community is to them - and the shift the panel's description went through suggests it started life as a bunch of people who wanted to whine back at the women and gays and so on for ruining the fun. But, whatever. Let's disregard that and just talk about the (admittedly bad) personal criticism that developers and publishers get for making shitty games - harassment like the stuff this comic which says Microsoft has put an "evil camera" in their console and generally hates us, or this one which suggests Microsoft allows poisonous snakes into their press conferences, or this one which paints the developers of Titan as fucking idiots, or this one which calls someone both "Satan" and "a menace" that "must be stopped" and so on. Is all this bad? Well I'm inclined to say suck it up and deal with it but whatever. Let's have a whole panel about whether this stuff needs to stop and we all need to get along so gaming can enter a golden age.
But that's only if you imagine the entire panel is going to be about the "personal" stuff, which is reading a lot into that one word. As far as I can tell, the description of the panel looks like it says "we don't like people criticizing our work, even when it's shitty. Games should be fun, why can't review scores all be 10 out of 10?"
Plus the whole "aren't games supposed to be FUN?!" wording is like, a biscuit away from "What's the big deal?", the constant refrain of privilege-denial.
Well, I'd do a multi-quote thing, but that makes post just unreadable. Fyi. I'm not just starting to learn about these things, i'm just starting to learn that its actually a huge source of "debate" in a different part of the world, that considers itself modern apparently... The debate itself is what's strange to me, not the thing that's being debated.
thanks for some form of answer atleast, I reckon it then slightly comes down to a cultural thing, or maybe its just me, but I never had my word view blown away because there are other situations, heck i'm well aware of that. I just remember reading the news i think it was three years ago(maybe 2), where they changed the law in my country, where people could change their legal gender without actually getting an operation, and i was like: Yeah, that sounds damn reasonable, why didn't we have that before?
Sure, I can see the benefit in having a simple word for cis, when discussing it, but to then turn that word around and say: cis-scum, i,e you're scum because you're cis, and thus are a hater on trans, Is reducing people(I'm using this example because it is in the thread, and i'm making the same argument for every other character aspect people have that is used in this way). These words in these arguments are used to reduce people into a stereotypical argument, i dont know which one, since i've never met any of the actual stereotypes, and that just continues to baffle me. As I said maybe it is a cultural thing, maybe it is just me.
Alright, here's the thing. I agree with you that the panel sounds like a bunch of people wanting the hate to go away. However the extent to which developers and people in the companies developing games get completely inappropriate criticism is not something that they need to "just deal with".
There is not a person on this Earth who should be getting death threats against themselves or their family for writing the ending for Mass Effect 3, but guess what!
There's not a gaming reporter out there who needs to get emails saying (well, I'll let you read it in the article above)
So, yeah. The panel sounds like people are getting together to want people to stop criticizing their games. But, seriously, people need to back off the keyboards and stop sending death threats to the people who write games, and there needs to be a massive outreach by developers, journalists and more importantly gamers to tell people it's not cool to say you're going to rape someone for making the "Tropes VS. Women in Video Games" videos.
And the other, much more vocal and prevalent part was that the people attacking her thought she wasn't attractive. When you google her name, you don't get people saying she was looking to get LGBT characters in games, or more importantly how she wanted to make games you didn't have to have long drawn out combat sequences to get through to the next story bit. Instead you get people, and images, commenting on her appearance.
It's pretty well covered in this rather terribly named article.
http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-writer-s-vagina-versus-the-internet-222206.phtml
No, I don't think the panel is about that at all. I think it's going to be people talking about how the criticism of their games needs to evaporate.
But it should be about what I typed about in that post.