Psyringe: That's interesting. You're using the same strategy as Browden - trying to shove away an inconvenient topic by giving the impression that it should only be addressed elsewhere.
It should be addressed elsewhere, it has no place in video games.
Browden tried to make an incredibly silly point that "we're not running for president" is a valid way of addressing concerns about the way his game depicts female characters. You are trying to make a similar point that gaming media _should_ actually remain blind to bigger issues that the industry may have, should _only_ discuss gameplay, and that anything else should only be discussed in political blogs.
Yes, that is my point.
Honestly, that's a silly argument. You might not like the fact that this topic is being discussed; that's fine.
It is of interest for others though (and bears some importance for the industry in general), so demanding from gaming media that they should not address it comes across as just another instance of "I don't want to read stuff I might disagree with".
My opinions on ~political issues~ are irrelevant. I'm arguing against people using gaming as a target to shoehorn in their personal political opinions.
Since you do seem to enjoy writing controversial posts yourself,
None of a political nature, at least in the context of gaming.
I believe it's a bit hypocritical to demand from gaming media to ignore a particular controversial topic that you may not want to read about.
It's hypocritical of me to expect gaming media to talk about games and not use games as a backdoor for political pontification? It's about as relevant as that reviewer on GOG using the Shivah release to voice his [anti-semitic] views via reviews.
Gaming is not isolated from the rest of society. It does influence (and is influenced by) other things that are going on in our world - politics, economics, ideals, changes in society. Just like there is good reason to write gameplay-only articles, there is also good reason to look beyond our own noses. I may not agree with every such article I read, but I welcome the general approach.
None of the people at RPS have the education or academic credentials to argue about politics with any objectivity, they simply don't have anything worthwhile to add. And I wouldn't articles that dealt with real-life ideas and games, if done in a neutral, objective and non-click-baiting "controversial" way. But when you are just shouting at people to check their privilege and denouncing everyone who puts something in a game you don't like as "misogynistic" it's going into the realm of politics. You know something is going wrong when many game sites are starting to give negative reviews to games because they don't adhere to their own brand of political ideology, including RPS's own review of Deponia 3.
And yes I do think their should be a strict division of blogs, if RPS wants to rebrand itself as more of a gaming culture blog like Kotaku then go right ahead, I don't complain about the crap that comes out of Kotaku, I complain about RPS because they hide their politics behind gaming.
And I also think RPS are a bunch of highly cynical people, because they know more "controversial" articles of a political nature generate more comments, more clicks, and thus more ad revenue. It's also classic "soft target" politics, gamers on the whole are a more passive lot, and they probably wouldn't defend themselves much to being constantly called a misogynist by the media. If they tried this kind of crap in ANY OTHER field or industry except games, they would you know have to provide academic evidence, you can't just say "sexism is a problem in gaming" and then provide anecdotal examples like some dickheads in fighting game community.
