GDC Rescinds Award For Atari Founder Nolan Bushnell After Criticisms of Sexually Inappropriate Behavior (polygon.com) 498
The organizers of the Game Developers Choice Awards announced today that they have rescinded the Pioneer Award for Atari founder Nolan Bushnell, and announced the award will not be given this year entirely. "The decision follows a day of outcry after GDC organizers announced that Bushnell, 74, had been tapped for the GDCA's lifetime achievement honor," reports Polygon. "News accounts and histories over the past several years have documented a history of workplace misconduct and sexist behavior toward women by Bushnell, during Atari's early days." From the report: In a statement this morning, GDC said its awards committee "made the decision not to give out a Pioneer Award for this year's event, following additional feedback from the community. They believe their picks should reflect the values of today's game industry and will dedicate this year's award to honor the pioneering and unheard voices of the past." The Pioneer Award is for "individuals who developed a breakthrough technology, game concept, or gameplay design at a crucial juncture in video game history," according to its official site. Nine have been conferred since 2008, none of them women. Bushnell founded Atari in 1972 and installed the first coin-operated video game, Pong, shortly thereafter. He presided over the company's rise to dominate the early generation of home console gaming before selling it off and founding what is today the Chuck E. Cheese line of restaurants. Bushnell issued a statement on Twitter: "I applaud the GDC for ensuring that their institution reflects what is right, specifically with regards to how people should be treated in the workplace. And if that means an award is the price I have to pay personally so the whole industry may be more aware and sensitive to these issues, I applaud that, too. If my personal actions or the actions of anyone who ever worked with me offended or caused pain to anyone at our companies, then I apologize without reservation."
Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right or wrong, this Politically Correct shaming is almost certainly going to backfire on women as fewer and fewer men in leadership positions risk bringing this kind of liability on board.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"...this kind of liability..."
I support the non-bringing on board of sexual harassers.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, you can't tell whether someone's a harasser by looking at him, and he's certainly not going to tell you. Companies are going to try to eliminate the problem the easy way.
Re: Prediction... (Score:2)
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prediction... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, Steve Wynn? They're rich, not desirable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Corollary: Organizations that can successfully recruit talented woman enjoy a tremendous competitive advantage, as they have twice the talent pool to recruit from for future positions.
Furthermore, what you suggest is not exactly new. It is just another shade of lipstick on top of the passe shades of lipstick on the same old pig. There is always a lame excuse why this is not quite the right time to do the right thing, that the old wrong thing is so superior because it is comfortable (to certain men).
Re: (Score:2)
Burn them alive by the neckbeard!
You may find it improves recruiting all around.
Re: Prediction... (Score:3)
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rather cowardly how we default to publicly shaming people as well, but I guess it's more socially acceptable these days to possibly ruin someone's life because they made you feel uncomfortable or acted like an asshole to you, and then call others cowards for not wanting to take such a risk.
Re: (Score:3)
Except in this case, there is plenty of evidence, provided by the Nolan Bushnell himself in his books.
The only thing is that now the women behind it decided to come forward and what were just a few lines in a few pag
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
In conclusion, fuck off. The adults are having a discussion and you can't think on a high enough level to provide meaningful input. Garbage in, garbage out. Please see yourself out the door.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Prediction... (Score:4, Insightful)
From the lists I could find online [google.com], it appears that the prominent people who have been caught up in the #metoo accusations in 2017 run somewhere between 25-1 or 50-1 in favor of left-wingers and Democrats vs. conservatives/Republicans. They're almost all in left-wing dominated industries, as well.
It's gotten to the point where I actually have a little more sympathy for left-wing accusations of sexual harassment based on the fact that maybe instead of exaggerating, they're just describing their personal experience with how it works in left-wing dominated places like Hollywood, the media, the Democratic Party and academia and the right-wingers just don't understand as much because they don't experience it as much in their institutions.
But it's crazy the left gives Hillary Clinton any credibility at all [washingtonpost.com] when it comes to sexual harassment and rape reports, when she's been one of the most consistent enablers out there (for Bill, and Weinstein, and in her own campaign), yet still claims as recently as yesterday that “For most of my life, harassment wasn’t something talked about or even acknowledged.” [nypost.com] The article goes on to mention "Except for the bulk of the 1990s, when her husband was accused by multiple women of harassment and by one of rape and Hillary worked to publicly discredit them. Other than that, no knowledge."
Re: (Score:3)
There's a fairly extensive list here: https://www.ft.com/content/204... [ft.com]
It seems like the majority lean to the right, being either Republican party members or having expressed conservative views in the past (e.g. several of the actors).
Jeez, can't win with people (Score:3)
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is most of these allegations haven't been proven. I have no reason to doubt them, some of the perpetrators admit it, but you don't fire people, or force them to resign, or ruin their lives, until the the allegations are proven - that's the legal system. Obviously employers can largely do whatever they want - they don't need to wait until allegations are proven. The kowtow to social media pressure when nothing has been proven, because people are JERKS and don't wait to reserve judgement, there are huge outcries just from an allegation, it can't possibly be that someone is lying or exaggerating. But then look what happens - a woman doesn't like someone, doesn't like a politician, is looking for a payout - and suddenly that consensual encounter 20 years ago, which she never complained about then, is suddenly sexual harassment.
I'm not saying all these guys are innocent, and I'm not saying nothing should be done, I'm saying we actually do have a legal system that ISN'T being applied in either direction. You know when it works? When a victim reports the crime as soon as possible, not decades later to jump on the bandwagon of all the accusations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
" you don't fire people, or force them to resign, or ruin their lives, until the the allegations are proven - that's the legal system"
That's exactly what's happened to women who've accused powerful men for a very long time.
And still happens today
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what's happened to women who've accused powerful men for a very long time.
And still happens today
To be fair, if you're right, we should be fixing that rather than trying to make it worse.
Re: (Score:3)
And instead of fixing it, women start doing the same...
No, they're not. They're making their accusations publicly but they don't have the power to force the change.
If they did, Trump would never have become president and Weinstein would be in jail.
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a really basic lesson since you clearly have no idea how a society works. The laws are supposed to reflect the ideals of the society. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not a magical legal thing some old dead "FUCKIN' WHITE MALES" dreamt up to keep the womens-folk in their place making sandwiches, it's a natural extension of the fundamental logical inability to prove a negative [wikipedia.org] plus the belief (due to placing a high value on freedom and liberty) that it is better to have a system where several guilty people may not be punished than to have a system where even just one innocent person is punished for something they didn't do. You would have us harm people on the basis of potentially baseless accusations and exile them based on rumor and speculation. I don't feel like I should have to explain to you why this is incredibly fucking stupid.
Trying to cleave apart the underpinnings of the judicial system and the ideals that the society at large strives towards is futile unless your goal is to change those ideals and, eventually, change the underpinnings as a whole. What you propose is called tyranny. Please feel free to move to Russia if that's how you roll; your values are incompatible with those of America and are not welcome.
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that neo-puritan movement has been blowing up for awhile, around a decade and it's sure not the right pushing it. It's coming directly from feminism. Considering that Feminism has been pushing for women to "do whatever they want" but have no responsibility when they fuck up, this isn't surprising. You can see this with the increasing numbers of cases coming to light of false rape allegations ruining men. Hell it's so bad in the UK that they just launched a public inquiry into the rampant number of false allegations and cases being over-turned because women are lying. They're lying either because they "regret it"(up to decades later suddenly) "are told by a friend it ruins their social standing" "as a form of revenge" "sympathy" "increasing status" or "profiting off victimhood." Stuff like MRA's, MGTOW and so on, don't exist in a vacuum despite what the "male feminist allies" believe. They exist because there is something fundamentally broken in many cases. Whether it be the "college rape epidemic" lie, or posters saying "1 in 4 women is homeless."(Just ignore those men). Or the absolute clusterfuck in family courts, where a court will award custody of children to a women who was pimping out her own daughter to feed her drug habit.
At this point I'm not sure what feminists are playing at, but it sure looks like they're trying to infantilize women. AKA you're not responsible for your own actions, it's all the patriarchy's fault, etc.
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
No sure where you get strange ideas like that from, but in any case the argument here is that human beings shouldn't have to put up with being grabbed by the genitalia or otherwise sexually assaulted.
That's not what the argument here is. But if you really want to make that the case, why don't you tell me why all those women when I worked a bar as a cadet, just couldn't stop grabbing my ass and dick. And I had zero recourse to do anything about it, I could not make a complaint. I could not detain, I could not tell them to stop. That's some pretty fucking exceptional leeway, now let's flip the gender and ask yourself what would happen? This happening to male police officers who work bars is so common it's stupid.
Having read about what guys like Weinstein and Nasser did, are you really saying that these complaints are without merit? Or for that matter, having read about what Bushnell admits to doing in his own autobiographical books...
You mean besides that Weinstein was basically selling roles, and women were selling themselves for roles? Nasser who actually *did* abuse trust, just like all those female teachers though right? Ever notice the sentencing disparity? I'll wait for you to look it up. Wait until you get to the cases where the women is the rapist and you see the tear works of: "that 13yr old boy I raped, ruined my life. And it's his fault I raped him."
No, they didn't. That is fake news.
Yeah, actually they did. And it's not the first time either, check your own news more often.
There have been problems with evidence that might help the defence not being turned over in good time, or at all.
aka perversion of justice. Not only did they not turn over evidence, in many cases they outright ignored evidence that showed that the defendant was not culpable. In at least 2 cases, the police hid exculpatory evidence from the court, defense, and crown in order to bolster the accusers case.
First thing to note is that it isn't evidence that the allegations were false - if it was, there would be prosecutions. The standard of proof required is "beyond reasonable doubt", and the evidence in question means that the prosecution could not reach that level. However, it also doesn't reach the standard for proving that the accuser lied, because as you know even if you agree to have sex with someone you can withdraw consent at any time.
So you're saying that a women 30 years from now who withdraws consent and then screams you raped her is acceptable?
First thing that you'd best pay attention to, women lie. Now let's look at the Jian Gomeshi case here in Canada, the women lied. The women colluded. They got together in order to fabricate evidence. Those women also *went back* for more sex with him, they bragged to each other over their S&M play, sent him photos after the alleged rape. This is not a case of he said/she said. But him? Career ruined, life ruined, end of story. Look at the last half-dozen cases in the UK that were high profile, what do we have but a pattern. How about that women in the UK who claimed she was raped by 10+ men in various different cases? Well she was eventually charged, convicted for those. But the lives she's ruined? Those men will never recover from those false allegations.
And in any case, do you know the percentage of cases that this affects? I'm guessing you don't or you wouldn't have used the adjective "rampant".
Well let's see, we can see as high as 70% of cases to turn out being false, that's here in Canada. That's cases of the accuser lied for various reasons, mad at the person, peer pressure, etc. Another 20-26% or so become "lack of sufficient evidence" the rest usually end up being convictions. Looking pretty rampant here.
On top of that, Canada, much like the UK, the standard in the case of allegations is "always believe" a
Re:Prediction... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was sexually assaulted and unable to complain, because I'm a man.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Mashiki really seems to think that if someone is not convicted for any reason, it means that the accuser lied.
Obviously AmiMoJo really seems to think that if someone is accused for any reason, that means they're a rapist.
On an related note Mashiki has accused me of all sorts of crazy stuff over the years, yet I have not been convicted of any of it.
On a related note, your inability to read continues to be staggering. I haven't actually accused you of anything, I simply wondered whether or not with the amount of virtue signalling you do that you're simply covering up for shitty behavior. You just didn't happen to like it when I compared the amount of virtue signalling you engaged in with the various people who also did the same and were sho
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a man and constantly see men of all stripes in the news being harshly penalized for mere public accusations of sexual misconduct often decades after the alleged misconduct took place, with little to no evidence of the alleged crimes happening (other people saying "yeah, that happened" is not evidence) and no criminal case ever being brought, are you going to assume that "I don't harass or abuse anyone so I'm okay!" is good enough? Not just no but hell no. Nearly half of all rape charges are thrown out or rejected for prosecution. [ncjrs.gov] Women can and do lie, and while it's not all of them, there are enough that if you run into enough of them you'll surely run into one of the unscrupulous ones.
What this "national conversation on sexual harassment" that feminists think is so great has actually done is force men in all walks of life to take actions for survival, and that means keeping women distant enough that an accusation from an unscrupulous woman will hopefully fall flat or won't be leveled in the first place because you simply didn't hire any female subordinates.
It's not a great way to live but it's the path we as a society have chosen. There is a reason that we required a certain level of proof before believing accusations of any stripe in the past and by throwing that out and letting the accusation equal automatic judgment as guilty, we're setting up a situation where those who can level accusations are a huge risk that simply is not worth taking. Be man all you want but the feminists got what they wanted here...and everything that comes with it. Enjoy your new world order.
Re:Prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prediction... (Score:4, Interesting)
When someone can just point at you and tell you harassed/molested em and everyone will automatically believe, it's a quite dangerous person to hire, unless you're willing to record EVERYTHING that happens in your company, so you can show up the tapes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When I hear stuff like this (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not stupid. He's genius. He's pointing out the clear double standard here. Under the intersectionality regime, EVERYONE can be a victim except "the man". Although it doesn't matter if "the man" is also as much a part of the underclass as anyone else.
The whole thing about "progress" is that you can live long enough to see standards and expectations change.
That means potentially harsh judgements for even the previous generation of people.
That doesn't mean you try to erase anyone from the last generation or older. You just need to get your panties untwisted and come to grips with the full implication that things have changed.
You simply can't handle the reality of the situation. You need a safe space.
Life is too complicated and disordered for you.
Re: When I hear stuff like this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as "white privilege" or "male privilege". There is, however, affluent privilege. Suggesting that white janitors and white CEO's enjoy the same level of "privilege" is absolutely deranged.
Of course it's deranged, but fortunately you have very fnudamentally misunderstood the notion.
The concept is that it's like an automatic level up in a given situation.
Take that janitor, and make every property of the janitor identical, i.e. socioeconomic situation, socionomic situation of parents, sa
Minorities (Score:5, Insightful)
I like to do a little game where I replace 'women' with another minority. Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews. Take your pick.
Women are not a minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Muslims are certainly a minority in the US, as well as in the world as a whole (they come in at #2 with about 22%; Christianity is #1, and they're still only about a third.) In Saudi Arabia, not so much, but I don't think you were thinking about that.
Re: (Score:2)
So how should I be interpreting what he meant? I honestly don't understand your argument. What population should I be looking at where Muslims aren't a minority?
Re:Minorities (Score:5, Funny)
It's funny how "Wow, I am actually unable to answer your question to my own satisfaction. Well played, sir!" got typoed as "Check your autism privilege, faggot." The letters are, like, right next to each other!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Frosty Piss = fake name massive human fail (Score:5, Insightful)
> See subject: Your MASSIVE FAIL in this life is you're nothing more than a chattering little do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" online & you know it...
I have credits on several PC games and I think this nonsense is bullshit. The guy wasn't perfect but that doesn't erase his legacy. Political correctness has put us into 1984 territory where the Ministry of Truth is here to sanitize and erase the past.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We need to have a realistic, nuanced view of historical figures. At the moment we tend to paint them as either a saint or a monster.
Bushnell did play a really important part in early video game history, no doubt. But he also abused his money and power and acted like a complete arse, contributing to a culture that pushed women away from that new and exciting industry. It's not just women either, he treated male Atari employees badly too, refusing to allow credits in games etc.
I don't think it's asking too mu
Re: Stop pretending we're not human. (Score:2)
Historic revisionism (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
In other news, Jesus H. Christ has been rescinded the son of god and lord savior awards to insufficiently progressive views toward women during 15 to 22 in the year of our lord.
The whole purpose of the award is to recognize actions from ~40 years ago that are more appreciated now than at the time. I don't think it's out of line to also look if some of the surrounding behaviours are more objectionable now than at the time.
Not just for that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Classiest tweet possible, good for him. (Score:5, Insightful)
No one can take away what Bushnell brought to the gaming world and his response to losing this award shows that whatever may or may not have happened in the past, the man is currently a beacon of class.
This is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
So now, on account of gossip and innuendo, we're going to just strike people from history?
Not 20 years ago Christian fundamentalists were mocked and pilloried for ramming their morals down people's throats and following some stupid rule book. Now we have an entire zombie movement enforcing their morals views and attitudes on a public as a whole.
There's not ONE PERSON ALIVE who's not guilty of unsavory behavior of one kind or another and we've entered an age where "my unsavory behavior" is now considered untouchable but "your unsavory behavior" is damnable.
Fuck that. Make a law and make it a crime through the official processes. Did Bushnell actually commit a crime? Bring him up on charges. This condemning or people to non-existence without even a chance for defense is Orwellian, wrong and downright evil - just as it was 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
utter, total, bullshit. There's not ONE PERSON ALIVE who's not guilty of unsavory behavior of one kind or another...
Yes there are. They're a large group of pure individuals who can do no wrong called "women".
Re: This is bullshit (Score:2)
Nobidy condemned anybody to anything. They did not give billshit award to him. Big deal.
Slander that men ar3 exposed to under the #metoo hashtag - that's the real oitrage.
Re:This is bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Hey kiddos, would do you some good to do some actual reading:
Steven L. Kent’s 2001 book The Ultimate History of Video Games describes how much Bushnell liked to have “fun” at work — sometimes, a very sexually aggressive form of fun — and “made sure that the men around him agreed with his philosophy.” They “held meetings in hot tubs, drank heavily, experimented with drugs... Sometimes Atari board meetings seemed more like fraternity parties than business meetings.”
The book also quotes Pong designer Al Alcon, who describes one such meeting. “Nolan needed some papers and documents so he called his office and said, ‘Have Miss so and so bring them up.’ We were in this tub [when she arrived], so he proceeded to try to get her in the tub during the board meeting. Nolan’s attorney was miffed [because] we got his papers wet. He was not in the hot tub and he was not amused by any of this. That was the sort of fun we had.”
And that's just one example from the article.
In the mean time, OP and the those that voted this +5 insightful can go back to r/incel or whatever cesspool you crawled out of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From the sounds of the story, there were 4 people, and 2 of them knew it was wrong. The other 2 thought it was OK, even though they knew the other 2 thought it was wrong.
So what exactly isn't fair? That it took this long for him to get any pushback at all? People told him it was wrong. He didn't care.
RTFA (Score:3)
The behavior was wrong then and it's wrong now. There can and should be consequences for these kinds of actions. As a parent I _want_ there to be consequences. I don't want people to think they can get away with this crap because nobody wants to talk badly about somebody who also happened to do good things. If we did that the Cosby Show would still be in syndication.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not stricken from history... he just didn't get some plaque... and he doesn't seem all that peeved about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Not 20 years ago Christian fundamentalists were mocked and pilloried
Yes ... surely.
for ramming their morals down people's throats and following some stupid rule book.
Ah yes, I remember all that Christian theocracy we were subject to in 1998. Like it was yesterday ;) People getting fired left and right, purges everywhere, hashtags galore, the prayers and hymns at the Emmys, the Oscars, ah, good times ...
Re:This is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Destroying monuments changes history and does, indeed, strike them from history.
That's why its called "historical revisionism" and used by governments of all flavors to keep the narrative proper.
Bushnell isn't dishonorable and deserves to be honored. Which is further proof that history is malleable as you're already to discredit his work as "dishonorable" because of gossip and innuendo.
Nobody's changed history (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
All that changes is that someone dishonorable doesn't get honored.
And what, pray tell, did Bushnell do to be labeled "dishonorable"? Ask a female employee to join him and other board members in a hot tub WHERE HE WAS HAVING A BOARD MEETING? Jesus fucking Christ, IT WAS THE GODDAMMED 70's!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Let's burn Freud's writings, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, you took a little bit of a leap from "let's not give this guy an honor" to, "let's destroy all the work he ever did".
moral character in good standing is required (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:moral character in good standing is required (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't affect his achievements. But maybe if humans collectively stop glorifying, rewarding and celebrating known shitheads for their shithead behavior...
No one's glorifying, rewarding, or celebrating his shithead behavior here. Hell, I'm sure most of us never even heard of any of this.
Re:moral character in good standing is required (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't affect his achievements. But maybe if humans collectively stop glorifying, rewarding and celebrating known shitheads for their shithead behavior...
No one's glorifying, rewarding, or celebrating his shithead behavior here. Hell, I'm sure most of us never even heard of any of this.
But now you have heard of it. And you can't glorify his achievements from that era without glorifying that shithead behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even understand what George Takei did wrong; they met at a bar, he thought the other person wanted some "rebound sex" and he was wrong. The other person nodded off while they were making out and woke up to being partly undressed. This doesn't sound abusive at all, this sounds like what happens after you go home from the bar with somebody that's been flirting with you at the bar for a few years.
It seems to be that the whole accusation is that he was more casual about sex than the other person, and th
Re:moral character in good standing is required (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone care to explain how personal indiscretions affect his achievements in developing "a breakthrough technology, game concept, or gameplay design at a crucial juncture in video game history"?
It doesn't. What it affects is our current decision on whether to laud this person for those achievements and to hold them up as an example.
It is possible to respect someone's achievements while also criticising their manner or behaviour. By only acknowledging the achievements and making no comment on the negative behaviour, once that behaviour has been brought to your attention, then in silence you support that behaviour. Had this award not been rescinded, then the GDC would, at best, be ignoring the problem and at worst would be tacitly supporting the behaviour.
By withdrawing the award, specifically as a response to information about Nolan's behaviour, the GDC is not saying that Nolan wasn't influential or that he didn't achieve what he did. It's saying that his actions outside of those achievements are such that he isn't the person the GDC would like to hold up as a positive example.
---
Nolan's tweet in response is ... elegant. 'If' he offended or caused pain, he apologises. He neither confirms nor denies. He praises the actions of the GDC. It's a classy, clever response to an ugly situation. If it's sincere, I don't think you can ask more. If it's not, it's a damn fine piece of spin control.
Re:moral character in good standing is required (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I respect that position, just like the award was rescinded because of conflating his behavior with his accomplishments, the rescission has now caused a schism between the meaning of the award and accomplishment.
I was a kid when the Atari VCS [wikipedia.org] hit the store shelves. It was the first mass-consumer microprocessor-controlled computing device in history. Yes there were other computers for sale at the same time, some even before, many more powerful. But the Atari was the one that became ubiquitous in people's homes. It was most people's first experience with a programmable computing device at home. It was the one that introduced the masses to the idea of one device serve multiple functions (different games in this case) simply by switching the program it was running.
If the guy who made that possible isn't worthy of your lifetime achievement award in computer gaming, then your lifetime achievement award in computer gaming is pretty meaningless. It's like denying Wernher von Braun's contributions to space exploration because he originally built the V2 for the Nazis which killed thousands. Sometimes a person's achievements and contribution to advancing the state of technology completely overshadow the negative things s/he may also have done. I get the feeling the people protesting him getting the award either weren't around in the late 1970s, or didn't care about video games so completely missed what an important milestone the Atari VCS was in history.
Re:moral character in good standing is required (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that you are replying to me ...
And here is the problem with SJW's
I answered the GP assuming a genuine question and without pejoratives. If you disagree with what I say, please criticise it, don't claim that my argument makes me a member of a group, then go on to create a straw man and attack that.
I have never heard of this organization, nor the guy who the award was taken from, nor have I played any of the games he made
And yet you seem to feel you are qualified to comment on this situation.
I DO know that a mere accusation without proof is not sufficient for me to pass judgement
Do excerpts from biographies written about Nolan qualify? This isn't 'he said/she said'. This is people pointing at well-documented behaviour and objecting to someone who engaged in it being honoured.
Given that this is some decades old story about a bunch of people I've never heard of, it's unlikely I will do the required research to develop an informed opinion
Not even reading the linked article, it seems.
but I don't have the facts to comment on it either.
and yet, here you are accusing those who have of belonging to some group you wish to vilify and of engaging in behaviour that only superficially matches the one you are ranting about.
How about you go live your life in the way you see fit, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone to do the same.
A question was asked. I offered an explanation. You've seized on that to declare your ignorance on the topic, label me an SJW and make some implications about the quality and/or lack of evidence.
I'm using a 'tactic'. I'm using reason, evidence and argument. I'm not trying to persuade you - you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in information; that you are happy in your ignorance. I'm using this opportunity to try to highlight some of the problems with your position in the hope that other people reading this can engage in a better class of discussion.
and leave the rest of us
Appeal to popularity. You responded to me. I'm responding to you. There's no 'us' and your position isn't improved by appealing to it.
To summarise - you are ignorant, happy in your ignorance and from a position of ignorance think to argue against a straw man of 'SJW tactics' that you seem to object to.
I look forward to your reasoned and considered response.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone care to explain how personal indiscretions affect his achievements in developing "a breakthrough technology, game concept, or gameplay design at a crucial juncture in video game history"?
From the accounts in the article he was largely responsible for a workplace that was really hostile to women. Given his place in the industry, the games he chose to develop, how he chose to market those games, and the template he established for a successful gaming company, he likely had a real influence on gaming culture (which led a lot of men to software development).
If another man had developed "a breakthrough technology, game concept, or gameplay design at a crucial juncture in video game history" it's
Re: (Score:2)
People are a lot more interests in the deeds of Ivan the Great than Ivan the Terrible.
Yes, if he behaved as a decent human being or a monster does affect how people will remember him, and what they will remember him for.
Judging the 70s and 80s (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we need to put a bit of perspective on this. While the behavior sounds reprehensible, it's not Harvey Weinstein-level and it sounds like this stuff was going on 35 years ago. Rape is rape, consent is consent, but we have a far more nuanced understanding these days about power imbalances and harassment in the workplace.
If this stuff was going on in the last decade, I think it's fair game.
We need to draw a line somewhere and say it's not reasonable to judge workplace behavior decades ago by the standa
Re: (Score:3)
No. It was skeevy then and it's skeevy now. Men who sexually harassed women in the '70s knew what they were doing was wrong, but they also knew there was a lot less the women could do to fight back. They made a choice.
Ask a woman who was in the workplace in the 1970s whether she didn't mind sexual harassment back then "because it was '70s". In the "court of public opi
Re:Judging the 70s and 80s (Score:5, Insightful)
You might want to learn more about culture history, my friend.
A few decades ago, The Flintstones (cartoon characters) were advertising cigarettes during cartoon breaks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAExoSozc2c). This is now illegal, however we're not chasing the poor bastards who drew those commercials to throw them in jail, do we?
Re: (Score:2)
Men who sexually harassed women in the '70s knew what they were doing was wrong
Incorrect. The concept of "sexual harassment" was first proposed by feminists in the 1970s and was formalized into law in the 1980s, but it didn't reach widespread public awareness until the Anita Hill hearing in 1991.
"Sexual harassment" isn't wrong because of a campaign some feminists ran in the 70s. It's wrong because it's harassment, it's wrong because the women in the Atari offices were being treated primarily as objects of sexual gratification instead of full human beings.
The lack of a label made it easier for people to be in denial of the fact they were doing something wrong, but label or not it was still wrong.
There's a good argument to be made (Score:2, Interesting)
This isn't idle chit-chat either. There's a lot of folks who pine for the 'good 'ole days' when sexual harassment not only went unpunished but reporting it _was_ punished. Wh
MORAL ABSOLUTISM!? (Score:2)
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!
You have some nerve claiming that it's just people longing for the "good ole days" and they're all conservatives.
As if Bill Clinton is a conservative.
As if Harvey Weinstein is a conservative.
As if Kevin Spacey is a conservative.
You have such a piss poor understanding of history that you fail to forget that it was progressivism and openness that led to the sexual revolution and the loosening of the "conservative" values that kept this sort of thing in check.
You have a piss poor un
I've got my popcorn (Score:2)
Please continue to discuss this topic.
No executive will escaps this (Score:2)
It seems to me like absolutely zero male corporate executives, or basically anyone in a position of power, is going to escape this. In my career I've worked with tons of slimebag executives and type-A salespeople...and basically all of them have at least the potential to be involved in inappropriate behavior. It was just the way things were done previously.
I guess my question is when it's going to stop being front page news. Usually these things have a limited window of interest, but basically every male in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because you could be next.
"Offensive behavior" and "sexual harassment" are very vaguely defined. Hell, you could ask a co-worker out right now, with the best intentions, fully respecting today's rules, and be called a "slimy asshole" 30 years down the line, simply because 30 years from now the rules will have changed to the extent your today's actions would be immoral, or, God forbid, illegal.
Their actions from the 70s are reproachable by today's standards, but they were standard behavior back then.
So watch
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me like absolutely zero male corporate executives, or basically anyone in a position of power, is going to escape this.
Many, even most. But not all.
Ideally the current ability for past behaviour to be exposed, for patterns of behaviour to be demonstrated, for victims to discover that they are not alone and to share their experiences will result in slimebags not being as successful as they have been. Maybe then people who aren't slimebags will rise to more senior positions and we'll see less sociopathic behaviour at the executive level. I doubt that this will be the case, but at least there's now more scrutiny and more press
Steve Jobs came up in that culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess it's time to vilify him too.
Works for me (Score:3)
Despite the famous RDF there's plenty of folks who don't like Jobs for plenty of reasons. So yeah, lets take him down a few pegs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bill Clinton comes to mind. He still gets speaking engagements. Why is he being rewarded for his borish behavior?
Re: (Score:3)
Steve Jobs came up in that culture, guess it's time to vilify him too.
Don't be silly, Steve Jobs should be vilified because he was a conceited asshole who denied having a daughter for two decades.
#CutThemAllOff (Score:2, Interesting)
At age 74, what chick did he hug forty years ago to deserve retroactive career extinction?
Re: (Score:3)
Not all Virtue Signalling - better solution needed (Score:2)
The writing is on the wall (Score:2, Insightful)
All those kids who got awards for participation should be prepared to have them rescinded when they don't toe the politically correct line.
persecution of the week (Score:3)
Burn the witch! Burn the witch! BURN THE WITCH!!!
-----
This hysteria for persecution of heterosexuality, this pestilence of violent neo-Puritanism - this, oh my bothers, is one of the many reasons China is beating is at absolutely everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like karma is catching up with Nolan Bushnell.