Episode 85: Down the Rabbit Hole and Back Again: More on “Gamergate” and Women in the Gaming Community (“Save As” to download or head over to iTunes to subscribe)
In this episode we talk about “gamergate” and community building among diverse gamer populations.
This week Alisha and I answer questions from folks in the community.
Episode 107: A Conversation with Dr. Kishonna Gray (Right click and save as to download, or find us on iTunes or Stitcher). We […]
Perception (2017) by The Deep End Games is above all else a psychological horror game about connection. And the game itself begins with […]
This Christmas Pea received a Lego Fusion kit for Christmas. When it was time to choose which kit she should get it […]
4 thoughts on “Episode 85: Down the Rabbit Hole and Back Again: More on “Gamergate” and Women in the Gaming Community”
I never really did leave. The last thing i sent revolved around the issue of intent an lack of knowledge about intent with semantics with Charlotte Hyde which was more of a standoff, atleast that is how i perceived it.
I posted a question about obligation and who owes who what. How is the ledger supposed to balance. Does media have an obligation to media consumers? Can consumers of media retaliate, via consumer defection, if they perceive their media is abusing them or if that media has propagates a philosophical tone or ethos that readers disagree with?
I know feminist theory and egalitarianism rely to a significant degree on exogenous agents to listen and internalize the information so that action and change can have a larger momentum but if people refuse to listen and switch media, if they freely evoke exit, they are in a sense undermining feminism and so i seen an inherent conflict and potential vulnerability of these brands of egalitarianism because they have to stealthily convey their theories, which is now blown, or they have to restrict exit, have some media monopoly, which is much less likely now.
You use a lot of words for not actually saying anything.
Your perception of our exchange as a “standoff” is baffling to me because I was mostly agreeing with you (or with what you said in that specific response anyway). Perhaps you read it as a sarcastic response? (It wasn’t.) Or perhaps, we are referring to two different conversations?
well one way or another there didn’t seem to be anything else to draw from that particular line of conversation after your response. I had assumed we reached the end on that one until and if you had returned to add something else.