The headline misspells “inadvertently,” and puts it in quotes as if that’s how Intel spelled it, but Intel seems to have spelled it correctly. It would have been funny if they’d spelled it wrong, all right.
OK Intel, you’ve decided to be on the wrong side of history. Now stew in your own shit until you rot from it.
They just happen to align themselves with them.
Huh, and I thought they were trying to take a brave stand for the right to bully and threaten people who disagree. 'Cause you know, girls are icky and shouldn’t talk while I’m trying to play a game.
IT’S NOT ABOUT THEM BEING GIRLS,. IT"S ABT THEM BEING SLUTS AND WHORES!!!
Now why can’t I get any any of those sluts and whores to like me? :’(
Gotta love BoingBoing these days. People bitch and moan when a company does something that they disagree with (regardless of whether the company did it deliberately or not), and then continue to bitch and moan when the company in question apologises.
As someone who has read about the Gamergate stories here, it looks to me like Intel just decided to step out from supporting either side in the debate. Hardly the worst or most offensive move.
Would you prefer it if this company that you all appear to dislike so much now restored it’s support for the site?
Sounds like there was nothing Intel could do here to satisfy BoingBoingers.
The error they claim was inadvertent remains an error.
The error caused fiscal harm to a firm they had an arrangement with, damaged the Intel brand, lent support to a lunatic fringe & was caused, if they are to be believed, by their not giving a damn.
That’s remarkable. Read the first sentence quoted,
now read the second,
now the first,
now the second.
Keep at that until it strikes you.
Which is why they apologised.
That’s a bit over dramatic isn’t it? Gamasutra still has other advertisers on their site, so it doesn’t seem as though they’re seriously affected financially. It may have damaged the Intel brand, but that was obviously a risk they felt was worth taking. And does this mean that anyone who chooses not to support Gamasutra must therefore be in support of a lunatic fringe?
Isn’t it more likely that they just didn’t want to get involved in what is obviously an ugly event in gaming journalism?
I did read it, but I’m not seeing it. I obviously have a different interpretation of their actions than you do.
Does that mean I also support a lunatic fringe?
I thought the Gamergate thing was about corruption in games journalism not sexism.
Except, y’know, restoring its support for Gamasutra.
I’d like to know what specific corruption it uncovered, because all I’ve heard mentioned is the Grayson / Quinn stuff, which nobody is defending any more.
So what has it uncovered? Gaming journalism has always been pretty sorry, especially with the ‘Official’ magazines, but I’d say if anything, you could argue that with sites like RPS, at least some gaming journalism is as good as it’s ever been.
I’m pretty sure BoingBoing commenters would find a reason to complain about that too.
But… but… they were so angry and vocal. What were poor Intel supposed to do? Take a principled stand? (Or even, you know, just ignore the whole thing and keep the ads?)
The whole “corruption” thing was a red herring, an excuse to attack anyone taking an anti-sexism stance (and any women associated with gaming in specific). It’s no coincidence that all the allegations that sparked this thing were immediately revealed to be false, and it not only didn’t stop anyone, but in fact the whole thing blew up from there - it was very transparently not about allegations of corruption. The fact is that RPS, who have long been taking game journalism to task for being overly cosy with game publishers/marketers (and at least one of their writers lost a job writing elsewhere for pointing out such issues, with RPS giving him their support) and have been demanding a more professional attitude from other journalists (and have sometimes written about gender issues in gaming) were targeted, but game magazines and blogs who have actually engaged in open corruption (but haven’t written about gender issues) were not.
This is far worse than the ad yanking, and is definitely taking sides:
Those faves were quietly un-faved.
Woah! That sums perfectly the MRA’s movement.
I thought absolutely nobody was still taken in by that line. Really?
Are you seriously claiming you believed that? Corruption in, “games journalism”? Which would require that you somehow believe that online video game reviews were up until this instance a bastion of honesty and purity?
Would you like to maybe think about this issue for a few minutes before commenting on it?