Do people here actually support Leigh's article?
Absolutely. "gamer" is so broad of a term now that it has essentially no meaning, so the word is effectively dead.
Well since what she wrote doesn't actually make openly contemptuous generalizations about their demographic, I'm going to disagree that this was in some way the wrong time for it. (See, the article can't be about generalizations about their demographic since its entire point is that this image of what the demographic really looks like is a myth.) She used provocative language to paint a very ugly picture of a certain very narrow niche of the gaming subculture.
Why so many people insist on looking at that picture and reacting as though it's actually a mirror is beyond me.
Her style isn't really my cup of tea either, but I'm not offended because I understand when something is and is not about me.
I don't know if I'd say I "support" it, but I agree with a hefty chunk of it and recognized even early on that large portions of it were being misconstrued or ignoredDo people here actually support Leigh's article?
Yeah...but people do that all the time. Everyone is used to it, and if you're provoked by stuff like this, then try to think hard about why it made you angry.
Self reflection is important. Skipping introspection and going straight to anger is a problem. I don't agree with the article she wrote at all. But it at least made me think more about the culture I associate myself with everyday. We certainly have a tolerance issue.
She says '‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences.'
If people read the article, they would have seen it's not about "everybody who ever played a game".
(Please don't reply with "oh but then she shouldn't have used the word gamer" or something like that)
Despite some efforts to change it, it still has the same meaning it always had. It's a short hand for person who plays or is playing a game. This has situational use at best, so this is why terms like "PC gamer", "casual gamer", etc. have existed for decades.
We agree, I think. As more and more people play games it becomes less and less useful to describe someone (or yourself) as a gamer. Eventually it will be the same as describing someone as a "TV watcher." The term encompasses so many different experiences that cater to so many different types of people that it adds nothing to your description of a person to label them as such.
People who read it (and understood it) mostly.
I'm not quite sure if we do. Gamer is a shorthand that is still useful, because there are many sentences that would employ the phrase "person who plays/is playing games" (which can even mean for a game developer "my audience"). The idea that we have weigh how much it "defines" someone kind of misses the point I'm getting across.
Perhaps I don't follow the point, then. Surely you see all the people in this thread labeling themselves as a gamer? They are using that term as an identity, correct?
I don't understand this 'it's not about you' argument. Every person can read the article and make up their mind whether what she's talking about affects them or is aimed at them. And multiple parts are aimed at anyone self-identifying as a gamer, which is a whole lot of very different people.
She says '‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences.'
I've always considered myself part of games culture, I know games developers and passionate game enthusiasts, both of whom are very involved in game culture and I find her statement to be offensive, both to me personally and in the way it relates to my friends.
Perhaps I don't follow the point, then. Surely you see all the people in this thread labeling themselves as a gamer? They are using that term as an identity, correct?
Thinking back, at the time of that article, I myself was pretty damn mad at the word 'gamer'.
It had been a solid week 'Five Guys' crusading and the seemingly endless cruel and nasty discussion on the topic. I'm not talking bomb threats but the tenor and volume of the Five Guys topics everywhere on the most mainstream of gaming sites. Top voted /r/games threads and top voted comments.
I was honestly thinking to myself, "If this is the culture that now represents being a 'gamer' ... then I can't think of myself as a gamer any more. This sucks."
To be honest, I wouldn't have heard of this whole thing if it was not for all the "gamers are dead" article. I believed this whole thing would be long gone by now if they were not written. The fallout is so predictable.
Removed at the request of the poster
Please do not post speculation like that without any evidence.
But... those people are a part of games culture, too. The horrible ones? They are a part of the culture you are a part of. They call themselves the same label you call yourself. To the public at large, you might seem to be allies. That isn't Leigh making that up; that's reality.
I just find it baffling that the title "gamer" seems to mean so much to some people that they became genuinely hurt and enraged by that article... but their response was to decry it ever being written rather than saying, "Wow, there are a lot of horrible human beings loudly identifying themselves as gamers and making the rest of us look bad. Since this title means so much to me, I'd like to do something to improve the way gamers are perceived by the rest of the world. 'Gamers' as a culture that means a lot to me doesn't have to be over because we can and should be better."
If it's such a sincere and important issue that gamers not be labeled or stereotyped, perhaps more energy should be focused on the very vocal members of the gaming community who behave like caricatures rather than the games journalist who pointed this out in a somewhat ham-fisted way.
Soo... to put it another way, harassment and death threats against a female game developer are not enough to show up on you radar, but Leigh's article was?
Thinking back, at the time of that article, I myself was pretty damn mad at the world 'gamer'.
It had been a solid week 'Five Guys' crusading and the seemingly endless cruel and nasty discussion on the topic. I'm not talking bomb threats but the tenor and volume of the Five Guys topics everywhere on the most mainstream of gaming sites. Top voted /r/games threads and top voted comments.
I was honestly thinking to myself, "If this is the culture that now represents being a 'gamer' ... then I can't think of myself as a gamer any more. This sucks."
But... those people are a part of games culture, too. The horrible ones? They are a part of the culture you are a part of. They call themselves the same label you call yourself. To the public at large, you might seem to be allies. That isn't Leigh making that up; that's reality.
I just find it baffling that the title "gamer" seems to mean so much to some people that they became genuinely hurt and enraged by that article... but their response was to decry it ever being written rather than saying, "Wow, there are a lot of horrible human beings loudly identifying themselves as gamers and making the rest of us look bad. Since this title means so much to me, I'd like to do something to improve the way gamers are perceived by the rest of the world. 'Gamers' as a culture that means a lot to me doesn't have to be over because we can and should be better."
If it's such a sincere and important issue that gamers not be labeled or stereotyped, perhaps more energy should be focused on the very vocal members of the gaming community who behave like caricatures rather than the games journalist who pointed this out in a somewhat ham-fisted way.
‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet.
It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave.
Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time. Suddenly they started wearing shiny blouses and pinning bikini babes onto everything they made, started making games that sold the promise of high-octane masculinity to kids just like them.
Yet in 2014, the industry has changed. We still think angry young men are the primary demographic for commercial video games
This is hard for old-school developers who are being made redundant, both culturally and literally, in their unwillingness to address new audiences or reference points outside of blockbuster movies and comic books as their traditional domain falls into the sea around them. Of course it’s hard. It’s probably intense, painful stuff for some young kids, some older men.
These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers
It’s clear that most of the people who drove those revenues in the past have grown up -- either out of games, or into more fertile spaces, where small and diverse titles can flourish, where communities can quickly spring up around creativity, self-expression and mutual support, rather than consumerism. There are new audiences and new creators alike there. Traditional “gaming” is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug.
https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507673109705797633regretful if my tone alienated non-neurotypical ppl. i had a lot of challenges re social norms as a child & games were my safe place, too <3
Intel pulling their support looks like tacit agreement with gamergate; whether they intended this or not is question to ask Intel I suppose.
I don't see how you can infer any such thing from their actions. At all.
There are sure terrible people out there, but I don't feel like that gets Alexander off the hook for what she said - at the very least, not away from the fact she said certain things. I mean, maybe you have no problems with it, but I think you are glossing over some details when you make it sound like people were only offended because she said something bad about the title of "gamer".
"if you don't support Leigh's article you must have read it wrong" is a bit of an out there statement.
you don't write an article saying " X people are this and that, they are toxic and need to go away" and expect X people to just sit back and say "i don't agree with the article, but i'm not gonna get mad about it"
You are still misunderstanding the article if you think she said X was everyone who plays video games.
That's one way to spin it. We already know #GG people have been organizing efforts to reach advertisers. We know these companies are getting tons of messages from #GG people. It's reasonable to think they might only be getting that side of the story.
We, knowing the whole story, think that action makes Intel look bad. We want clarification that they really understand what's going on.
I think it's fair to say the article is pretty terrible out of context. And the article is especially bad if you helped harass a few certain people or condoned the harassment of a few certain people.
Using exclusionary terms and stereotypes to get back at people who exclude and stereotype you...confirms that both sides are ready to full on dehumanize each other in order to feel better.
EDIT: Also, this reminded me of something that I thought was a little weird at the time. She did apologize, partially, for this piece as such:
https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507673109705797633
Maybe I'm don't get it (and admittedly, more ready to believe the worst of her), but it sounds like to me, as someone who understands non-neurotypical as someone on the autism spectrum, like "if you do these things that apparently can be associated with autism, then it's okay if you have autism, otherwise it's embarrassing/disgusting/socially-retarded", which sounds like a poisonous way to apologize to someone. Actually, I might even be more bothered by the second part of that apology, but I'll leave that untouched.
Intel could have read the article themselves and felt it was too strong or vitriolic to support.
they are composed of adults who, we assume, can make decisions on their own.
Companies removing support from companies or persons they deem would hurt their image isn't a new thing.
"if you don't support Leigh's article you must have read it wrong" is a bit of an out there statement.
you don't write an article saying " X people are this and that, they are toxic and need to go away" and expect X people to just sit back and say "i don't agree with the article, but i'm not gonna get mad about it"
You are still misunderstanding the article if you think she said X was everyone who plays video games.
Intel could have read the article themselves and felt it was too strong or vitriolic to support.
they are composed of adults who, we assume, can make decisions on their own.
Companies removing support from companies or persons they deem would hurt their image isn't a new thing.
"if you don't support Leigh's article you must have read it wrong" is a bit of an out there statement.
you don't write an article saying " X people are this and that, they are toxic and need to go away" and expect X people to just sit back and say "i don't agree with the article, but i'm not gonna get mad about it"
Gamasutra were one of the outlets that spread anger, flames and us vs. them mentality further and wider than any misogynist anonymous troll ever could.
Intel could have read the article themselves and felt it was too strong or vitriolic to support.
they are composed of adults who, we assume, can make decisions on their own.
Companies removing support from companies or persons they deem would hurt their image isn't a new thing.
I think back to the tailgate: the man blowing cigar smoke in my face, the man who mockingly yelled, Thanks for letting us use your name!, the group who yelled at us to go the fuck home, the little waif who threatened to cut me, the dude who blew the train horn on his truck as I walked by the hood. I think of all of that, and I think back to ODell crying and trying desperately to get out of the room full of calm Natives. I thought she was crying because she was caught unawares and was afraid. But I realized that was her defense mechanism, and that by overly dramatizing her experience, she continued to trivialize ours. It was privilege in action. And as I realized these things, something else became incredibly clear: She knew she was wrong.
Intel pulling their support looks like tacit agreement with gamergate; whether they intended this or not is question to ask Intel I suppose.
spin eh?
like a big company getting one side of the story from some emails? come on, all we have is speculation at this point.
Soo... to put it another way, harassment and death threats against a female game developer are not enough to show up on you radar, but Leigh's article was?
Can you show me that there was an organized campaign to email Intel showing support for Gamasutra before Intel made their decision? No. You can't.
there's organized campaigns all the time. chick fil a. the microsoft announcer thing. not all are successful.
you don't know what prompted intel to drop her. Could the emails have brought the article to their attention? sure i can believe that.
did the campaign itself force them to drop their ads? that's you making assumptions.
it could just as easily have been the fact Leigh was dissing gamers for being consumerist pawns. And guess what intel does? they sell products to consumers who happen to also be composed of enthusiast gamers.
it's not farfetched to think that supporting someone who is insulting your bread and butter might be bad for business.
Yes, our partners at @intel were flooded with complaints over a recent opinion piece, and they did pull an ad campaign.
“Intel has pulled its advertising from website Gamasutra,” Intel spokesperson Bill Calder said. “We take feedback from our customers very seriously especially as it relates to contextually relevant content and placements.”
That tweet does sound, um, odd out of context, but it makes more sense when you realize it's in response to https://twitter.com/pattheflip/status/507671487810007040 which she retweeted just prior to making that apology.EDIT: Also, this reminded me of something that I thought was a little weird at the time. She did apologize, partially, for this piece as such:
https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507673109705797633
Maybe I'm don't get it (and admittedly, more ready to believe the worst of her), but it sounds like to me, as someone who understands non-neurotypical as someone on the autism spectrum, like "if you do these things that apparently can be associated with autism, then it's okay if you have autism, otherwise it's embarrassing/disgusting/socially-retarded", which sounds like a poisonous way to apologize to someone. Actually, I might even be more bothered by the second part of that apology, but I'll leave that untouched.
Gamergate in a nutshell.
there's organized campaigns all the time. chick fil a. the microsoft announcer thing. not all are successful.
you don't know what prompted intel to drop her. Could the emails have brought the article to their attention? sure i can believe that.
did the campaign itself force them to drop their ads? that's you making assumptions.
it could just as easily have been the fact Leigh was dissing gamers for being consumerist pawns. And guess what intel does? they sell products to consumers who happen to also be composed of enthusiast gamers.
it's not farfetched to think that supporting someone who is insulting your bread and butter might be bad for business.
We do know.
https://twitter.com/gamasutra/status/517415198492467202
http://recode.net/2014/10/01/under-pressure-from-gamers-intel-pulls-advertising-from-gamasutra/
Intel did not care about the article. They do care about feedback.
So let's put the speculation part of this to bed. This wasn't Intel caring about one article on a website on its own.
And as I said earlier, the effect of this isn't that huge. Intel will still have a presence at UBM Tech's other sites and events. Someone else will ad buy at Gamasutra to reach developers. Life moves on and the system continues to work as intended.