w1n5t0n

When I tuned into the podcast yesterday and was introduced to the new hires I physically sighed. Today when I came home from work and started to read all the raging on the internet I was not surprised.

This whole saga, at the end of the day, is about people being paid to talk about video games! Diversity is not about maintaining statistics. The most qualified person for THIS job is the person who can offer a diverse opinion from their own personal background. Just having Danny on some of the podcasts recently has been a breath of fresh air on podcast with his "European background" even though he's quite possibly a white guy as well (Never seen a pic/video of him).

The Bombcast also just lost Vinny and as the only parent amongst the regulars, he at least had that unique perspective.

Dan may be an amazing journalist, but when the heart of Giant Bomb is people talking, not writing (on podcasts and quick looks), the most qualified person for the job should be someone who has a very different perspective on video games than the cast we already have.

Qualifications / Diversity "statistics" are irrelevant as I'm sure there were many applications from people from a non "white guy" background that had more than enough experience.

My disappointment with the decision to hire 'just another white guy' for Giant Bomb is purely that it's boring.

I feel like some people did say exactly that, though. Maybe only one or two, but after reading them it kind of felt like that's what everyone saying they were "disappointed" actually meant.

I stand corrected. Those kinds of comments are hurtful. But I think there is room for both welcoming Dan and Jason and voicing displeasure about the demographics of Giant Bomb.

If Dan and Jason are insulted by opinions levied at Giant Bomb that are completely detached from them as individuals, then they have to deal with those issues themselves.

And I've said before, Leigh can have that opinion. She's taken a lot of shit from the Internet and our community.

I'm know this isn't a unique opinion, but this whole thing grew greatly out of proportion. It started with the sort of 'internal' community's discussion, then as news spread external people like Samantha picked up on it and voiced their criticisms, and from there other elements started to come into play. There have been other groups at play here stirring the pot, both "men's rights activists" who made it their 'duty' to slander those criticizing the new hires, and the trolls from places like 4chan who just want things to blow up. It seemed like then most of the original criticizers coming under fire assumed it was all the 'awful Giant Bomb community' and that angered those who'd done nothing wrong but were being associated with, and held accountable for, other peoples' actions.

What even constitutes the Giant Bomb community? Is it everyone who posts on the forums and on content? Does it reach as far as the new accounts made to troll or share unwanted opinions during livestreams? Is it anyone who consumes the GB content with any regularity, or is it someone who has the absolute most basic knowledge of what Giant Bomb is and who its personalities are? The truth is, it doesn't really matter. We all get blanketed under negative connotations from assumptions that anyone on Twitter posting on the issue at hand with a dissenting opinion, whether it's civil or not; the boundaries on what actually constitutes a community here stop being relevant. There's no controlling that, and it's not fair to anyone on either side. The moderation on the site for handling these issues is usually top notch, but it's not like they can moderate what anyone feels like saying on Twitter or other forums. That's not to say someone who gets attacked through the faintest association deserves it in the slightest, and it's in no way fair for them to receive those kinds of comments/threats/whatever, but it's not something anyone who knows better can control either. All of the staff said they were against it, and that's as far as their reach goes on the matter. The people having civil discussions here aren't the ones going and writing threats to whoever on Twitter. I don't particularly like Samantha Allen and I don't agree with some of her opinions, but like any reasonable human being, I can let it roll off me pretty easily and never say a word to her directly; it's not a normal response to go and berate her because I disagree.

To be mad about someone like Leigh or Samantha is entirely misguided. They may have differing opinions, they may disagree, but aside from getting flustered and perhaps writing regrettable things after an onslaught of threats and abuse, they didn't exactly say anything all that outrageous (and they certainly haven't said anything that even approaches warranting the attacks they've received). The issue is the people in between, some who come from what I would consider to be this 'community', and a vast majority who don't. I can't find the comic right now, but it's basically something like this:

Discussions usually begin between Sensible A and Sensible B. They disagree on a topic, but there's no drama, no commotion. Slowly, the extremists come into play. Sensible A is all of a sudden speaking to Extremist B, and Sensible B is speaking to Extremist A. Eventually the sensible people leave, knowing the discussion isn't leading anywhere positive, and you're left with Extremist A fighting Extremist B. The transition and grouping is never so clear in real life though, so people from Sensible A perceive everyone of opinion B to be extreme and vice versa. People who were then once sensible get caught up in the commotion as a result of duress, and they begin to lash out, appearing much more like their extremist counterpart. It's reasonable to think the staff picks should've been more diverse, and it's reasonable to think that things are fine as they happened, and that's where the discussion started. It started to exceed that very quickly though, the forums were fairly civil yesterday, but once the discussion left here the number of extreme opinions increased exponentially, from say a couple of people to a few hundred. Both civil sides of the discussion are now painted as being incredulous and reprehensible. The big issue here however, is that Sensible B was represented by a few, public-facing people, and they unfairly received the entire front of Extremist A. Regardless of whether you agree with their opinions or not, everyone should feel sorry for those who were berated for civily sharing their opinions.

Anyways, most of this post probably hasn't made much sense and now exists purely as my incoherent ramblings. Normally after writing all of this out I'd be satisfied and delete it without sharing a word, but I'll put it out there and hope it's worthwhile to someone.

Their tastes in video games might very well be different! And yes, this may be because of the circumstance of their identity. Identity, as you can imagine, is a very important and pervasive concept. Also, I don't believe he meant to offensively reduce Dan or Jason to their gender and ethnicity. I hope everyone is being clear that nothing is being held against the individuals for wanting to work or being given the opportunity to.

"All sides need to calm down." Meanwhile only one side is making rape threats or death threats. It's not enough to just say to these goddamn idiots "on the side of Giant Bomb" (notice the quotes I know they don't represent the opinions of the actual GB staff so try not to trip yourself NOTALLMENing me) to settle down.

Here are the actual sides to this argument:

1. People saying that Giant Bomb is staffed exclusively by white men (true) and that this is indicative of a lack of diversity of opinion.
2. People saying that group 1 should shut up and die and get raped

Group two is horrible and their opinion is worthless. And guess what, they do represent a portion of this community whether you like it or not. I don't feel bad for the guys who just got hired. They got a really nice job, but I don't see a lot of criticism of them directly, just of the decision to hire a couple more white guys. That's a reasonable critique. Yes, they're people outside of their classification as white or guys but this isn't really about THEM at this point.

@tom_scherschel said:

You pretty much hit it on the nose man! I think will hopefully see thing from a level head, it seems like a lot of the stuff earlier today was raw emotions be thrown about it a most uncivil matter...

uhhh It does make sense that many are attracted to the opposite sex, but that doesn't have to do with liking videogames, movies, or anything else. The point was that human society has built up and perpetuated gender identities which often influence who prefers what, and that liking certain kinds of genres isn't restricted by sex.

A woman who likes a shooter isn't a woman enjoying a male genre; it's a woman enjoying a shooter. Her voice should be as valid as any male voice in discussing what they would like to see in shooters or any other kind of game.