Real talk; if you think Leigh Alexander's "Gamers are dead" piece was meant to say literally that all gamers are bad people, or that all white male gamers are bad people, or that games focused on that slice of the market shouldn't exist anymore, you're either misreading the article (in good faith), or purposely misreading the article to drum up more hate.
Alexander's piece was about the widened scope of contemporary gamer culture. "Gamers are dead" is not meant to say that the people who've helped gestate this medium have no place in its future, it's saying that we, as a community of people who love games, have finally helped to usher this hobby truly into the mainstream. "Gamer" as a designation at this point is almost meaningless because from a certain age downward almost everyone knows something about games, and has played and enjoyed them. If you truly read that article with an open mind and read it as "hostile" to its audience, I would suggest that you shouldn't take internet thinkpieces about video games so seriously.
I also think it's really interesting that this piece has become a GamerGate canard, because it has literally nothing to do with ethics, at all. Even if the article was openly hostile and couldn't be read in any other way, how does that present an ethical quandary that GG feels needs addressing? Being mean to someone in an editorial isn't an ethical issue. The reality is that the "Gamers are dead" article is a loose, poorly considered pretense to harass another female voice in the industry.
Log in to comment