Slashdot Mirror


GDC Rescinds Award For Atari Founder Nolan Bushnell After Criticisms of Sexually Inappropriate Behavior (polygon.com)

The organizers of the Game Developers Choice Awards announced today that they have rescinded the Pioneer Award for Atari founder Nolan Bushnell, and announced the award will not be given this year entirely.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."

245 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. Prediction... by Frosty+Piss · · 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.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      aka the cowards way out

    2. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Prediction... by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "...this kind of liability..."

      I support the non-bringing on board of sexual harassers.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    4. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup. We're seeing the rise of the neo-Puritan movement (coincidentally with the the American Cultural Revolution) as men decide that women just aren't worth the legal and personal liability. The excesses of the 60's-80's will be replaced with Victorian-era repression and then we'll see the current-sacred-cows start getting gored.

    5. Re:Prediction... by Alypius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Pence Rule is looking more and more attractive (can I say that?) every day.

    6. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is simple human survival instinct, not cowardice. Say you're are at a large dinner table and five people around you take a drink of the water everyone has been served and those five people almost immediately begin vomiting, do you drink the water? Not just no but hell no.

      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. 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.

    7. Re:Prediction... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2

      It's not politically correct. It's humanly correct.

    8. Re:Prediction... by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2, 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).

    9. Re:Prediction... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    10. Re:Prediction... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      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.

      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 pages in a book now have real ramifications. People say "why didn't you come forward earlier" when in fact, it was practically impossible to because it becomes a whole he-said-she-said thing and for the most part, the system guarantees the woman is not believed. That was, until Weinstein happened and actually lead to women being believed when they weren't before and the whole #MeToo movement).

      Anyhow, the interesting point is how it seems all the people with "liberal" descent like Hollywood pretty much just up and admit to their mistakes, while those of "conservative" descent circle the wagons and deny deny deny? I wonder why that is...

    11. Re:Prediction... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the key word being "allegedly." Instead of waiting for proof, organizations kowtow to social media pressure and fire the accused. It's messed up. I mean, if I ran a company I feel like I'd have to let someone go, too - it doesn't matter if everyone else is wrong if I lose half my business because people are so willing to believe one side and not the other, despite no proof.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re: Prediction... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Sorry for what happened to you; props for realistically looking at these accusations - on top of the fact that most have not even been proven, but all the accused are guilty in the eyes of the public anyway. People that hurt other people should be dealt with harshly, but there's a reason the legal system doesn't include lynch mobs.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    13. Re:Prediction... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      It's humanly correct if it actually happens. It seems like a fraction of the accused admit it and take their "punishment," but the vast majority say it never happened or was consensual - why are people so quick to believe one side over the other? Because it fits the "narrative?" So due process doesn't matter anymore because the accusations confirm the bias of the masses?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    14. Re:Prediction... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Which vast majority? I haven't seen any numbers.

    15. Re:Prediction... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's even more of a good option for desirable men, as they are more likely to be accused. I don't see low status nobodies being called out on #metoo.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re:Prediction... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2

      Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, Steve Wynn? They're rich, not desirable.

    17. Re:Prediction... by haruchai · · 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

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    18. Re:Prediction... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I support the non-bringing on board of sexual harassers.

      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.

    19. Re:Prediction... by Z80a · · Score: 3, 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.

    20. Re:Prediction... by windwalkr · · Score: 2, 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.

    21. Re:Prediction... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Burn them alive by the neckbeard!

      You may find it improves recruiting all around.

    22. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > Anyhow, the interesting point is how it seems all the people with "liberal" descent like Hollywood pretty much just up and admit to their mistakes, while those of "conservative" descent circle the wagons and deny deny deny? I wonder why that is...

      Same reason poor or disadvantaged people sometimes plead to crimes they didn't commit or women who feel no one will believe them. You can't fight it because doing so will just make things worse and more expensive. How do you fight accusations when the other side needs to present no proof to dispute? Do you believe anyone that has denied it? They just give some generic statement about being sorry IF they did anything that offended someone then hope it blows over. That isn't admitting anything by the way. Read his statement again. I have no idea if he actually did anything wrong and we're certainly not going to find out in slashdot comments.

      More interesting is why the "liberal" people seem to be the most common targets of these accusations since they are supposed to be the ones that are more enlightened about it.

    23. Re: Prediction... by dskoll · · Score: 2

      Why, is it easier for guys to discriminate illegally than to behave themselves?

    24. Re: Prediction... by dskoll · · Score: 1

      There are gay men and lesbian women.

    25. Re:Prediction... by haruchai · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    26. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're discussing a matter that is over 40 years in the past. That's 14,600 days or 350,400 hours (233,600 of them awake.) It doesn't fucking matter anymore. People like you who keep trying to dig up ancient shit and make it relevant today are the hot sultry trash of our society. People can change quite drastically in the span of only a few years; in four decades there is not a single person that is the same way they were back then. It was a very different era. Looking at other decades and other cultures through the lens of your culture today is not an acceptable method of evaluation. Just because something is now a cardinal sin worthy of witch burning doesn't mean it was in the 1970s.

      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.

    27. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh fuck me, here we go again with another giant steaming shithole who will parrot the letter of the law all day long while aggressively dodging the spirit of the law. You're one of those dumbasses that stomps around on Reddit and proclaims that websites shouldn't abide by the principles of free speech because they're not legally forced to, aren't you? Yeah, that's definitely the type you are.

      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 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.

    28. Re: Prediction... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      There are gay men and lesbian women.

      Gay men and lesbians have never sexually harassed anyone?!?!?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    29. Re:Prediction... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As it turns out, women are attracted to high status men. One of the markers of high stats is wealth. The more you know...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    30. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well fuck me. You're happy to see innocents burn to catch some guilty fuckers.

      I'd rather see every guilty fucker get away than punish a single innocent person.

      Go Magna Carta clause 39 yourself up before you have an aneurysm.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      http://magnacarta.cmp.uea.ac.u...

      And if you're American - due process clauses are written in your constitution.

    31. Re:Prediction... by Mashiki · · 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.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    32. Re:Prediction... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the lists I could find online, 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 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.” 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."

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    33. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is most of these allegations haven't been proven.

      The FT has a list of guys who were accused and what happened to them: https://www.ft.com/content/204...

      Quite a few have continued on with few/no consequences.

      I agree that there should be investigations where they don't simply admit it like Bushnell did. That's only fair and proper. But it's not true to say that "most" of these allegations are not proven, as in most cases they were investigated and/or the accused admitted it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:Prediction... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      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 concerns me is that it's not necessarily about lying, but about stupidity and our culture that supports it. If you make an accusation against someone else and you have no proof, that counts as potential slander or libel. You don't make any public accusations without at least a shred of proof. If you're putting yourself at that kind of legal risk just for the chance to whine in public, then you're dumb and impulsive. Guess what? Truth or lie, man or woman, I tend not to trust people who are dumb and impulsive!

    35. Re:Prediction... by Mashiki · · 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

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    36. Re:Prediction... by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      > simply didn't hire any female subordinates.

      And Kevin Spacey?

    37. Re:Prediction... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      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?

      If you think that then you're wilfully blind. Take the Article AmiMojo linked to https://www.ft.com/content/204...

      A significant fraction of those have the person in question admitting the accusations are true. If the alleged says "yeah that happened" then yes, that is pretty strong evidence.

      A very significant fraction.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    38. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sorry to double reply, but I've noticed something important. You don't seem to understand what something not being proven beyond a reasonable doubt means.

      The accuses is legally innocent, but doesn't mean that they didn't do the thing they are accused of. They may or may not have, we don't know.

      I mention this because you seem to have assumed that all the accused men didn't do anything, but that all the accusing women definitely lied. Neither is a justified conclusion based on failure to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

      For example, in Gomeshi's case he withdrew his lawsuit and paid CBS's legal fees, but in the later criminal trial the prosecution was unable to reach the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction. From that you concluded that he was the victim of a lying accuser, despite there being evidence to the contrary, which is completely unjustified.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re: Prediction... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Kisses and light touches at the office are most certainly not okay. If you think they are then you're part of the problem.

    40. Re: Prediction... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      As it turns out, people with DNS and BIND in their nicknames like to have sex with little boys. This game is so easy!

    41. Re: Prediction... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      What I find totally retarded about the whole thing is that he's definitely a video game pioneer regardless.
      He may not have behaved as a rock among women and he may not be a woman himself but he's definitely a video game pioneer.
      That women maybe haven't been and whatever he's done otherwise doesn't change that.

    42. Re: Prediction... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1
    43. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's sad that a lot of men are now so paranoid they won't enjoy the company of women... Although why limit it to women, I mean a lot of these accusers are gay men so better just not be alone with anyone, ever.

      This scaremongering has got to stop.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      There's a fairly extensive list here: https://www.ft.com/content/204...

      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).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re: Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Note that the cases collapsed because the standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) could not be met, not because there is proof that the accuser lied. Very different things.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:Prediction... by lucasnate1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was sexually assaulted and unable to complain, because I'm a man.

    47. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nearly half of all rape charges are thrown out or rejected for prosecution.

      Sure, but do you understand that declining to prosecute or the prosecution failing is not the same as the accuser having lied?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:Prediction... by chapstercni · · Score: 2

      Invited does not equal forced.
      Pressured does not equal forced.

      The women absolutely made their own choices.

      NO ONE FORCED THEM.

      I never support forcing anyone. That is wrong.

    49. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You honestly see nothing wrong with your boss, the guy with the power to fire you and decide your future career prospects and raises, pressuring you to get in the hot tub with him?

      If it was you, how would you react? Would you be confident that your refusal wasn't going to hurt your career?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'm sorry you had to suffer that, but that's not the question here. The question is, what should be done about it?

      Mashiki is advocating that people should just accept sexual assault and not complain, because he was assaulted once and unable to get it addressed. Do you agree with him, or do you think that everyone, of any gender, should be able to complain?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    51. Re:Prediction... by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      To put this in the typical and slightly inaccurate slashdot car analogy:

      You were driving down a bit of road 40 years ago - the speed limit was 55mph. Today, that same bit of road has a speed limit of 35mph. As such, we're going to charge you for driving at 55mph 40 years ago - because that isn't the present speed limit.

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    52. Re:Prediction... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Having read about what guys like Weinstein and Nassar did, are you really saying that these complaints are without merit?"

      I'd say they might be something to consider if asked out on a date or to work a late night project in the office by one of them and have absolutely no relevance in considering their impact as pioneers in game development.

    53. Re:Prediction... by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Anyone of any gender should obviously be able to complain. Now lets put some reality googles on and consider the real level of offense here. The damage is minor discomfort and annoyance. Should you be able to complain and be protected from firing or legal punishment for an appropriate level of physical action to deter? Yes. Should you be protected from social consequences for complaining, yes. Should we label it with a dramatic word like assault and group it alongside serious attacks and blow it out of proportion? No. Should anyone be going to jail? Absolutely not.

    54. Re:Prediction... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The accuses is legally innocent, but doesn't mean that they didn't do the thing they are accused of. They may or may not have, we don't know.

      I mention this because you seem to have assumed that all the accused men didn't do anything, but that all the accusing women definitely lied. Neither is a justified conclusion based on failure to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

      On at least one of those cases the hidden evidence showed that the sex was consensual.

      That makes it a false allegation and yes, she should be fucking prosecuted and imprisoned.

      When trials are collapsing it's because there's no case to answer, not because they found the defendant not guilty. That's not a "insufficient proof" situation, that's a "oh fuck, we've been lied to by another fucking professional victim" situation.

      Men are under attack from these professional victims and it's utterly fucking fantastic that the attorney general has decided this needs to be looked into.

    55. Re:Prediction... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Not sexually harassing women isn't being Politically Correct (and nice scare caps there), it's "being a decent human being".

      What the fuck does that have to do with being accused of sexual harassment?

      Yes, I have been falsely accused of sexual harassment. I know it was a false accusation because (1) what I was doing wasn't sexual in nature, (2) what I was doing wasn't based on the sex or gender of the other person (as I do it to anybody) and (3) what I was doing wasn't harassment.

      Not sexually harassing women is a fuck of a lot easier than not getting falsely accused of it. I need a clear an obvious defence, and that means witnesses or recordings.

    56. Re: Prediction... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That bit is true https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s...

      No it doesn't. Posting a link to something sounding vaguely similar is not the same as posting a link t comething. The link does not support the claim Mashiki made.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    57. Re: Prediction... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What part of the story is only "vaguely similar"? I can dig out a few more links if it's too confusing for you.

    58. Re:Prediction... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I was discussing the current environment, not Bushnell in particular - if someone is proven guilty, or admits it, then let the wrath happen. Some of the allegations are admitted to by the perpetrator - case closed; when it's denied, someone better have proof before we immediately jump to the conclusion of guilt. What's at issue is both whether or not something happened, or if what happened was actually consensual, or if what happened should actually be considered assault, or even harassment. Instead, social media immediately jumps on the accused without actually knowing what, if anything, actually happened.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    59. Re:Prediction... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      But you're ok with giving out awards and kudos for things people did 40 years ago...

    60. Re:Prediction... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      You can't punish people for what you THINK might be going on in their heads. People actually have to do something, unless you think Minority Report is actually a good idea. The act doesn't even actually have to happen, but there needs to at least be an attempt - or the clear threat of it. Sorry, that's the way it is. And it works for everybody, not just for old white men in power.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    61. Re:Prediction... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      force men in all walks of life to take actions for survival

      The only men who would consider it a threat to their survival are the shitbags who harass women or approve of their harassment. You've clearly identified yourself to be in that category.

    62. Re:Prediction... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Someone got a fortune cookie...

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    63. Re:Prediction... by CylanR77 · · Score: 1

      The laws are supposed to reflect the ideals of the society.

      Consider that the ideals of society have changed.

      Don't like it? Fight to change the ideals back to where they were.

      --
      http://cylan.deviantart.com/gallery/
    64. Re:Prediction... by MoralCharacter · · Score: 1

      You're right for calling out the 'generalising 50% of the population bit'. It's more like 100% of the population is ABLE to do it, and a certain portion of the population regardless of gender will pursue romance or marriage with an ulterior motive.

      The terms 'marrying into money', 'gigolo' and 'gold digger'? These were not invented in a vacuum.

      But hey who knows, maybe that hot 18 year old really is marrying the octogenarian with millions in the bank out of TRUE LOVE and their relationship is entirely healthy.

    65. Re: Prediction... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What part of the story is only "vaguely similar"?

      Yeah my bad, it's not even vaguely similar.

      Also, you're being a moron. Mashiki said this:

      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.

      And you posted a link to a story about the polics and CPS failing to hand over evidence to the defence before trials.

      Those are not the same. You know they're not the same, I know they're ont the same, so why the pretense they are.

      I can dig out a few more links if it's too confusing for you.

      More? You've failed to dig out one of relevance so far. Feel free to try, but I know you won't succeed.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    66. Re:Prediction... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You're right for calling out the 'generalising 50% of the population bit'. It's more like 100% of the population is ABLE to do it, and a certain portion of the population regardless of gender will pursue romance or marriage with an ulterior motive.

      Yep, that's fine.

      I agree with that. Pointing out that some proportion of people do such things is reasonable. Saying all women do it is blatantly sexist, which I was complaining about. To be clear: I would not dispute that some men and some women are gold diggers. I know at least one personally.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    67. Re:Prediction... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'm sorry you had to suffer that, but that's not the question here. The question is, what should be done about it?

      In a society that believes in equality, individuals would be held to account for it. That's not happening, I realize this is very difficult for you to accept but welcome to the real world.

      Mashiki is advocating that people should just accept sexual assault and not complain, because he was assaulted once and unable to get it addressed. Do you agree with him, or do you think that everyone, of any gender, should be able to complain?

      And...that's the exact opposite of what I said. I can't tell if you're intentionally trying to piss people off, or you fail to understand what someone says 99% of the time because you don't want to actually hear what they're saying. You simply slap your lens on something to view it and apply your own biases.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    68. Re:Prediction... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      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 shown to be shitty humans.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    69. Re:Prediction... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sorry to double reply, but I've noticed something important. You don't seem to understand what something not being proven beyond a reasonable doubt means.

      No, I understand exactly what it means. You on the other hand don't seem to be able to read, or understand what I'm saying.

      For example, in Gomeshi's case he withdrew his lawsuit and paid CBS's legal fees, but in the later criminal trial the prosecution was unable to reach the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction. From that you concluded that he was the victim of a lying accuser, despite there being evidence to the contrary, which is completely unjustified.

      Uh no. It went to court, and that was from the judges own decision in the case. Also try to at least get the broadcaster correct. You can either read the case yourself, try canlii.org or read an article like this. Yes the women lied, repeatedly.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    70. Re:Prediction... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      TL;DR

      But from what I saw, you're a creep. Sorry about your world changing under you, creep. Get used to it.

      And let's flip the genders shall we? I'd have the media lining up and screeching that nothing was being done, that there's a systemic and underlying pattern of abuse. That people did not want to address it.

      And on the other hand, show exactly why MRA's exist. Because really, you're just a shitty human being that happily turns a blind eye to something, then starts screeching with the virtue signalling.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    71. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      in the later criminal trial the prosecution was unable to reach the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction

      Uh no. It went to court, and that was from the judges own decision in the case.

      That's what I said! You even quoted it!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    72. Re:Prediction... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      And it will still continue to happen to men and other people, because they don't seem to count as worthy of recognition!

      Kevin Spacey would disagree

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    73. Re:Prediction... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Saying women are attracted to high status men is like saying men are attracted to women with big tits. It's non controversial and obvious to everyone.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    74. Re:Prediction... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Saying women are attracted to high status men is like saying men are attracted to women with big tits. It's non controversial and obvious to everyone.

      Are you Australian by any chance?

      http://theweek.com/articles/49...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    75. Re: Prediction... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Case collapsed because accuser lied

      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s...

      Case collapsed because accuser lied

      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s...

      Case dropped

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...

      This one is particularly appalling

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      As is this

      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s...

      That's 5 in the space of 6 weeks. There was at least one other. The problem of rapists getting away with their crimes is not going to be solved by throwing innocent men under the bus.

    76. Re:Prediction... by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of feminism. At least.

      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.

      There's the feminism that thinks women should have the same rights as men, that people shouldn't be sexually assaulted. If men can open bank accounts but women can't. that law is bad. Rape is wrong. (Amazingly, people who are not feminists are also oppose to rape. Yes, it's true!.) Things like that.

      There's the feminism that thinks society ought to be remade because men have been bad in the past and made society bad.

      There's the feminism that thinks that any differences between male and female, of any age, other than the incredibly obvious, are cultural inventions, and ought to be stamped out.

      The people holding those last two views overlap so much, maybe they should consider one.

      It's possible to be opposed to sexual assault and stupid laws about who can deliver the mail and such, and still not buy into the notion that men and women, except for a few unfortunately necessary biological differences, are exactly the same and that men are awful.

      Yeah, that's an exaggeration of most feminists of the latter sort. But feminists who don't differentiate themselves from the lunatics and the merely confused, out of a sense of solidarity or out of fear, diminish the effect of their own efforts.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    77. Re:Prediction... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fascinating theory, but why are you telling me all this?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    78. Re:Prediction... by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Because some people think there is one thing called "feminism", and if you're opposed to some of the zanier things advanced by some people who are called feminist you are not a feminist and you are an advocate of sexual assault.

      I'd hoped that would be clear, but apparently not.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    79. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen anyone who was actually there come forward about Bushnell; I've seen people who weren't there and read his books attack him. I've seen women who actually worked with him during that time come forward to defend him and say that there was no pressure to do anything besides work.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    80. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Link goes to a paywall. Also, expressing conservative views in the past doesn't mean they lean to the right - I know quite a few leftists/liberals who agree with the conservative viewpoint on some issues.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    81. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Or those who aren't sure what constitutes harassment (which is something that's changed a lot faster in recent years than it used to), or those who are worried about the (minority) of (highly publicized) cases where false accusations ruin someone's (not always a man's) reputation.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    82. Re:Prediction... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      They didn't say "all women". Are we doing a #NotAllWomen campaign now?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    83. Re: Prediction... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      No, that still doesn't support Mashiki's and now your claim.

      Put up or shut up. Either post links to this alleged public inquiry or GTFO. I'm not going to be fooled by links to stuff which aren't about public inquiries.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    84. Re:Prediction... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      They didn't say "all women".

      No, but they singled out women for something which is a universal trait.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    85. Re: Prediction... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Oh I see. You're being pedantic. How pathetic.

    86. Re: Prediction... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Oh I see. You're being pedantic. How pathetic.

      So not accepting "evidence" that does not in any way shape or form support the original claim == pedantic.

      LOL!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    87. Re:Prediction... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That's what I said! You even quoted it!

      No, you apparently fail to understand the basic points of law. The prosecution was unable to reach the standard for a conviction. The judge(trier of fact & law) however ripped the prosecution for failing to do their due-diligence in the investigative process. Those are two fundamentally different people.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    88. Re:Prediction... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Huh? I can't see how anything you've said there even remotely follows what I said. Also, you seem to have a great deal of trouble noting the marked difference between someone grabbing your ass and someone raping you.

      Your first example is sexual harassment, not rape or assault, your second example is a prison rape, neither has anything to do with my contention that having ones ass slapped in a bar isn't appropriate behavior but it is preposterous to call it "sexual assault" regardless of the genders involved.

    89. Re:Prediction... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Right, just because there was some kind of outcome you wanted to avoid doesn't make it rape. If you are going with that logic everyone who engages in oral sex for the sake of their partner is being raped.

      I'm sorry, there are too many people who are actually rape victims suffering from the term rape being watered down by lumping in nonsense like this. Is it sexual harassment? Sure. But rape it is not.

    90. Re:Prediction... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Was this directed at me? If we are going with the preposterous use of the word "assault" to talk about someone grabbing your bits then I've also been "assaulted" dozens of times. Depending on whether the person is someone you wanted attention from or not it ranges from a mental "mmm hmm I'm getting laid" to awkward and unwanted but at no point it is something negative enough to survive hopping to the next bar and having another drink.

      Men and women should be entitled to complain. But we should also get a lot more realistic about the wide chasm between emotionally unpleasant and criminal and it is certainly nothing we should get a vote on if we ourselves feel too strongly and have an emotion rather than reason based bias.

  2. Historic revisionism by sinij · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Historic revisionism by quantaman · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Historic revisionism by pots · · Score: 1
      That's an interesting perspective. I don't think it's really about appreciation though, rather it's about actions which have had long-term effects. The quote from the article is that the award is for: “individuals who developed a breakthrough technology, game concept, or gameplay design at a crucial juncture in video game history”

      So given that, it might be reasonable to look at all of his actions and weigh their impact against one another. The good of his life against the bad. Under those circumstances we could consider the long-term effects of his actions on those women who he employed at the time... None of those effects or those women are mentioned in the articles linked in the summary. The only people leveling criticisms at Bushnell here, at least the only ones mentioned, are people who give no indication of ever having had any personal contact with him at all.

      So that's all that I really wanted to say in response to your comment, but a lot of these accusations against him are being derived from a particular book, The Ultimate History of Video Games, which is a book that I happen to have read a while back. None of them really reflect what the book was actually describing - a company which functioned as an anti-business, run and operated by hippies. The point that the book was making was the extremely casual work environment. There's a quote in the Verge article:

      2/ Atari held board meetings in a hottub. There, the board would invite the women employees they wanted to have sexual with up to the suite, and pressure them to strip naked with the men.

      This is by Mr. Bushnell’s own admission in the book “Ultimate History of Videogames.”
      — Brianna Wu

      Now I realize that she's a troll, and that by responding I'm just feeding the troll, but I have my moments of weakness now and then. So: This didn't happen, this is not in the book. The article gives the real quote there as well:

      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.
      — Al Alcon

      That's all that the book has to say about it. This wasn't the only hot tub meeting, but there was never any mention of nudity or pressuring women to strip naked. Nor was there any mention of the men being naked. There's no discussion of clothing in that quote, nor is there an implication that nudity would be required or expected for "Miss so and so" to join the others in the tub. My memory is imperfect, but I don't think there's any mention of Nolan pressuring anyone to strip naked at any point in the book, and I really think that's something I would have remembered. The worst that can be said about Nolan's behavior, from that quote, is that maybe he was a little sleazy. But that's still only a maybe, it still requires making assumptions about the particulars of that situation and his motivations based on almost nothing.

      I'm finding this bullshit to be really upsetting, it is just as bad as the Aziz Ansari thing. The very least that the GDC should have done before rescinding his award would have been to try and contact the people who were actually involved. I should not be reading an article quoting condemnation from random nobodies. Where is the quote from "Miss so and so"? Hers is the only accusation that matters here. Though, as has been said countless times now, it's only a conviction that actually counts. Or should count.

    3. Re:Historic revisionism by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So that's all that I really wanted to say in response to your comment, but a lot of these accusations against him are being derived from a particular book, The Ultimate History of Video Games, which is a book that I happen to have read a while back. None of them really reflect what the book was actually describing - a company which functioned as an anti-business, run and operated by hippies. The point that the book was making was the extremely casual work environment.

      That's how the author viewed it certainly, we don't really know how it was experienced by the women in the office.

      That's all that the book has to say about it.

      Certainly if the book is her only source she's distorting it, but the article isn't actually clear if the book is her only source. Implying the book full backs her narrative is misleading, but the book does say that women were specifically summoned to the hot tub meeting.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  3. Classiest tweet possible, good for him. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. This is bullshit by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    utter, total, bullshit.

    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.

    1. Re:This is bullshit by Alypius · · Score: 1

      You clearly haven't been paying attention to the whole "Columbus Day" vs "Indigenous Peoples Day" asshattery.

    2. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · 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".

    3. Re:This is bullshit by avandesande · · Score: 1, Informative

      Columbus really was a scumbag, even for his time.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:This is bullshit by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The past doesn't change. History is malleable and does change because only recorded history remains and that can be changed on a whim.
      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.

    5. Re:This is bullshit by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1, Funny

      Lighten up Francis. He's still got a Wikipedia entry.

    6. Re: This is bullshit by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:This is bullshit by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      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!!!

    8. Re:This is bullshit by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Let's burn Freud's writings, then.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    9. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Generally agreed, but...

      When was the last time people lost their jobs because a church didn't like their behavior?

      With religion, even at its worst, you could know the "rules". Now with #METOO you live or die based on what someone's unquestionable feelings supposedly were months or years after the fact.

      Sci-fi has long been dreaming about a technology where you can change reality at your whim just by changing your thoughts. #METOO is already there. Feel something different from moment to moment, everyone and all of reality has to restructure to your feelings.

    11. Re:This is bullshit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Let's burn Freud's writings, then.

      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".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm guessing you're married...

      See, there it is. When women have a mere claim, that claim is taken as hard evidence to act upon. When men make a claim, it must be that they are fundamentally broken, of low social value, and the claims can be dismissed.

      This is blamed on toxic masculinity, but narry a peep is said, let alone taken seriously for the reasons elucidated above, about toxic femininity. The culture of rumor, accusation, shaming, and utilizing social structure to undermine anyone you dislike is not masculine, but a feminine attribute.

    13. Re:This is bullshit by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was the 70s. There were hot tubs. That kind of thing was OK back then. Hell, Bill Clinton straight up raped women and he got the presidency. In the 90s! And the feminist Gloria Steinem wrote in the New York Times attacking his accusers! So let's not judge what happened back then by today's standards. It's not fair.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No no... unacceptable. We will take whatever the current moral standard is and apply it retroactively, that's the new way. Fuck context.

    15. Re:This is bullshit by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      He's not stricken from history... he just didn't get some plaque... and he doesn't seem all that peeved about it.

    16. Re:This is bullshit by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re:This is bullshit by quantaman · · Score: 1

      utter, total, bullshit.

      So now, on account of gossip and innuendo, we're going to just strike people from history?

      Is Bushnell denying the accounts are true? Are people who worked in the office denying it? From all appearances this was common knowledge in the Atari offices at the time, it just never became an issue till now.

      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.

      So it's acceptable to treat women as being worth less than men just because people have done it for a long time?

      Sure it took a long time for people to acknowledge that sexism was wrong, but now that it's been acknowledged we need to stop the wrongdoing.

      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.

      There's been a few exceptions, but so far the targets have largely been people with a really ugly past or the reckonings have been mild.

      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.

      Bushnell isn't being forced from the industry, he isn't being burned in effigy, people are just saying "hey, this specific era you want to celebrate had some serious issues".

      Judging from the Tweet he seems to get it and he hopefully understands the problems people have with his past behaviour.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    18. Re:This is bullshit by war4peace · · Score: 1

      You just wait a few years. It's going to happen.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    19. Re:This is bullshit by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      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 ...

    20. Re:This is bullshit by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Ask a female employee to join him and other board members in a hot tub WHERE HE WAS HAVING A BOARD MEETING?

      Wtf is wrong with you? That is not acceptable in any time period, despite whatever the pornography industry has brainwashed into you.

    21. Re:This is bullshit by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      You don't think there isn't de facto Christian theocracy in certain parts of the US of A? Go somewhere that has 'blue laws,' or, God help you, go to certain American states and try to get an abortion, and enjoy your state-mandated medical rape, excuse me, trans-vaginal ultrasound.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  5. moral character in good standing is required by SchroedingersCat · · Score: 5, 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"?

    1. Re:moral character in good standing is required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't affect his achievements. But maybe if humans collectively stop glorifying, rewarding and celebrating known shitheads for their shithead behavior (despite the positive contributions they make), the next generation of achievers, contributors and fame/glory seekers won't be such shitheads to people and the world might be a slightly better place.

    2. Re:moral character in good standing is required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not about anyone's achievements; it's about the award itself, and the giver.

      If you give an award in 2018, you're doing that in 2018. And the award-giving is its own news, to attract attention to the award-givers. It has little to do with whoever receives it, other than how the fill in the blanks of the message.

      GCD is making the statement that they want to make. And part of that statement is "we're in on this #metoo meme, just like everyone else. We're with the good guys. We're cool."

      You know it's true. That's why we're talking about GCD, not Bushnell. Bushnell is irrelevant. Video games are irrelevant. Now, let's talk about awards some more! So.. how did you like the grammies?

    3. Re:moral character in good standing is required by another_twilight · · 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.

    4. Re:moral character in good standing is required by Scarred+Intellect · · 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.

    5. Re:moral character in good standing is required by quantaman · · Score: 1, 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 quite possible the modern computer industry would be much more gender-diverse. And that undercuts the very contribution for which he was to be celebrated.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:moral character in good standing is required by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Way to deprive the world of its Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Harvey Weinstein, and George Takei. We wouldn't have Quentin Tarantino movies without Harvey.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:moral character in good standing is required by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:moral character in good standing is required by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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 there was a miscommunication about the nature of the relationship. And as soon as that was clarified, there was no problem. So, what's the problem?

      The fact that people you meet at a bar want to have sex with you isn't necessarily some sort of assault on you. Especially if you're already making out with them.

    9. Re:moral character in good standing is required by quantaman · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re:moral character in good standing is required by another_twilight · · Score: 4, 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.

    11. Re:moral character in good standing is required by jcr · · Score: 1

      The purpose of this award is to get people who want to see Nolan Bushnell to shop up at the conference. It has nothing to do with his merits or flaws. If GDC thought it was a net positive to their bottom line, they would have ignored the bitching from the SJWs.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:moral character in good standing is required by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      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 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.

    13. Re:moral character in good standing is required by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there are plenty of achievers and contributors who were also shitheads. If we refused to use all of their achievements and contributions because we rejected them for being shitheads, society would be poorer. Our entire world is based on the results of past shitheads, e.g., which side won various wars in part because of various non-PC generals (even for the comparatively lower PC standards of the time) (let's see a general slap a soldier *today*). So while I agree completely that we should be teaching people to NOT be shitheads, and we should prefer non-shitheads given an even choice, we have the societal problem of utilizing outstanding ability or achievement when it happens to be unfortunately packaged in a shithead.

    14. Re:moral character in good standing is required by strikethree · · Score: 1

      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.

      The message you are sending is that if you EVER exhibited behavior that might be considered "bad", then NOTHING you have ever done that is considered "good" should be honored.

      I am okay with that. That means nobody should ever be honored and nothing good should ever be rewarded. Nobody is perfect.

      Do you like the world you are helping to create?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    15. Re:moral character in good standing is required by strikethree · · Score: 1

      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.

      Well, the simple way to fix this is for every award that is given out to anybody, attach this disclaimer:

      "We understand that nobody is a saint and even behavior that is socially acceptable now may not be in the future, so with that in mind, while we honor this individual for their notably good behaviour, we simultaneously castigate any and all unacceptable behaviour they may have engaged in during their lifetime."

      Or, you could just not give awards out ever because nobody is perfect and we wouldn't want to encourage any salacious behaviour.

      In a sane society, the award would be given and the person who exhibited the poor behaviour would either attend psychological retraining or suffer criminal penalties.

      The only time it is acceptable to withdraw an award is when the award is granted through fraudulent means... like if Nolan Bushnell actually had not done any of the things the award was for.

      Essentially, what you and many others seem to be arguing for is that nothing positive can ever be recognized/rewarded if the recipient of said award had ever done anything bad at any point in time of their life.

      Let's assume Mr. Bushnell had received a speeding ticket once in his life. "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."

      I am betting that your brain will get hung up on how trivial the crime is so let's make it easier for you.

      Let's assume that Mr. Bushnell had killed 6 million people. Would Time magazine be encouraging the killing of 6 million people by having him as their "Man of the Year"?

      Never mind. Just fuck you and your stupid insane bullshit. I literally DESPISE the thought processes that YOU are engaging in. Have a nice day.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    16. Re:moral character in good standing is required by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Of course I can. Atari were fucking great, whether they were run by a puritanical nun or some bloke that likes hot tubs.

      Incidentally, one of those two classes is responsible for genuinely horrific systemic child abuse, and it's not blokes that like hot tubs.

    17. Re:moral character in good standing is required by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      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"?

      Because "social justice", heretic!!

    18. Re:moral character in good standing is required by CylanR77 · · Score: 1

      you can't glorify his achievements from that era without glorifying that shithead behaviour

      Martin Luther King Jr. also engaged in some rather "free" sexual practices. Therefore, the civil rights movement must be discarded from history.

      --
      http://cylan.deviantart.com/gallery/
    19. Re:moral character in good standing is required by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      caused a schism between the meaning of the award and accomplishment

      I think you've neatly summarised the essence of the (less strident) sides of the debate.

      Should an award offered in 2018 in honour of someone's achievements in the 70s be influenced by evidence of behaviour that is recognised as unacceptable?
      (There's some argument about whether the behaviour is unacceptable or not; that's a different debate).

      Some argue that the accomplishments should be considered in isolation, and the nature of the person shouldn't influence the issuing of an award. Others argue that the award honours the person, not just the accomplishments, and so the nature of that person does need to be considered.

      You mention von Brauhn, which is a wonderful example of a non-Godwin nazi reference. von Brauhn's accomplishments are profound, but his membership and work for the Nazis in WWII has meant that his legacy has attracted exactly the sort of debate we see here. In both von Braun and Nolan's case, the contrast between personal behaviour and accomplishments mean that they require a more complex or nuanced evaluation. I don't think you can say 'this person is a hero/god or a villain/bad'. It's too simplistic.

      The problem is that awards are, essentially, reductive and simplistic. They aren't nuanced. There's no real capacity to say 'Yes, this person is, personally, an asshole, but gosh they were good at [X]'. It's all or nothing. It's for this reason that I think the withdrawal of the award is necessary. Nolan is not a 'clean' hero. His achievements, as important as they may be, were made by someone with reprehensible personal behaviour.

      I appreciate and I hope, understand, the point you are making. I think that my disgreement comes down to what I see awards as meaning.

    20. Re:moral character in good standing is required by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      Or, you could just not give awards out ever because nobody is perfect and we wouldn't want to encourage any salacious behaviour.

      I have two problems with this sentence;

      The first is that you are exaggerating the position to demonstrate the absurdity, without demonstrating that the exaggeration is fair and that the absurdity applies to the original position and not your exaggeration, alone. To give no awards because everyone has done something wrong, even if only minor, is clearly ludicrous. That there exists no line between 'not perfect, but has no major flaws that would preclude an award' and 'has flaws that make giving an award problematic' has not been shown.

      I think that there exists a line, below which someone with the occasional speeding ticket can easily be honoured, and above which we have at the other end of the spectrum someone like Mengel. Where you draw the line, and how you go about dealing with those close to it are not easy answers. If you'd like to argue that Nolan is close to such a line, I'm happy to continue. But to argue that no such line exists or should exist because, in extremum it creates a ludicrous situation is not a flaw of the concept but of the exaggeration.

      The second point I take issue with is;

      salacious behaviour

      Nolan did not engage in salacious behaviour. He engaged in behaviour, in a workplace, that constitutes harassment. By describing it as you have you are ignoring or trying to dismiss that point. It's not negotiable. It's documented in biographies and he is quoted in interviews with Playboy.

      seem to be arguing for is that nothing positive can ever be recognized/rewarded if the recipient of said award had ever done anything bad at any point in time of their life.

      You misunderstand or mischaracterise.

      To the extent that an award is a simplisitc 'this person is worthy of admiration' and not a nuanced 'this person did some amazing things, but was also an asshole' then awards need to be careful about who they laud. GDC seems to agree in that they withdrew the award. Nolan seems to agree given his tweet/apology.

      I think there is a threshold of behaviour, below which the sort of minor flaws of character can be overlooked. I do not believe Nolan's behaviour can be overlooked, especially in this industry, especially in 2018. The 'line' is not static. What is and is not acceptable changes. It needs to be challenged. We need to hold up our standards to scrutiny and demand that people we hold up as role-models, heroes and award winners reflect those standards. This means that people who once were considered heroes may come to be seen as flawed. And none of that should cause their accomplishments to be denied, just the awards given to the _person_.

      I literally DESPISE the thought processes that YOU are engaging in

      And I'm genuinely sorry to have offended. I see argument and debate as a process for exchanging information and testing ideas. On topics that cut close to concepts which are held dear, it's easy to see disagreement as a personal attack. This was not my intention; I apologise, again, for any distress I have caused and thank you for the time you took to explain your position.

  6. Just the beginning by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    It's all about ethics in gaming.

    Karma catches up with you, at some point.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Just the beginning by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Karma catches up with you, at some point.

      Sounds like karma is catching up with Nolan Bushnell.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Judging the 70s and 80s by Anonymous Coward · · 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 standards of the current era. This doesn't give these folks a pass on everything they did, but let's not crucify somebody who may very well have evolved since then, as many of us have on lots of social issues.

    1. Re:Judging the 70s and 80s by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      We need to draw a line somewhere and say it's not reasonable to judge workplace behavior decades ago by the standards of the current era.

      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 opinion", it's not up to the perpetrators to decide when the statute of limitations has run out. It's up to the victims.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Judging the 70s and 80s by war4peace · · Score: 4, 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?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:Judging the 70s and 80s by quantaman · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re: Judging the 70s and 80s by dskoll · · Score: 1

      According to this article: http://time.com/4286575/sexual... The phrase âoesexual harassmentâ was coined in 1975, by a group of women at Cornell University.

    5. Re: Judging the 70s and 80s by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Yay /. UTF-8.

    6. Re:Judging the 70s and 80s by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Great point. I really don't want to derail this thread but there is an analogy too good to pass up here.

      "Taxation" isn't wrong because of some global movement that took place in 2060. It's wrong because it's theft. It's wrong because the people taxed were being treated primarily as slaves 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.

      It's a harder concept to appreciate because we're still living in a world order based on fear but I still find the analogy striking. Even the pathetic excuses (women welcomed the attention and dressed for it) line up well (those that decry taxation still use the services taxation makes possible).

      That's not a good analogy because taxation isn't a clear "wrong" the way that sexism is.

      1) Taxation tends to pass the test "design a society without knowing what your place in it will be" while sexism does not.
      2) Taxation hits the richest and most powerful the hardest, sexism the opposite.
      3) Taxation doesn't actually declare any member of society to be less valuable, sexism does.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Judging the 70s and 80s by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This is now illegal, however we're not chasing the poor bastards who drew those commercials to throw them in jail, do we?

      I must have missed the part where Bushnell got thrown in jail.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Judging the 70s and 80s by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We aren't showing those cartoons either. Just like Disney lost potential revenue on racist cartoons it produced back in the 30s because they can't be shown or sold any more.

      Plus, not one of these guys who has been accused of historic sexual assault/harassment has gone to jail.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Judging the 70s and 80s by war4peace · · Score: 1

      OK, replace that with "cancel all drawing contracts for any existing animations" - is that okay?
      Throwing someone in jail for a couple years, after which they can continue their career seems to be the better alternative.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    10. Re:Judging the 70s and 80s by Cederic · · Score: 1

      1) Taxation is to benefit the rich and powerful people in charge

      The rich and powerful can pay for their own health care, pay for their children's education, pay for their own transport. Taxation allows communities to provide all of those to the poorer members of society.

      2) Taxation affect the poor WAY more that the rich, if you lose 20% a million you still have plenty to buy shit, not so if you lose 20% of $100

      Except if I earn a million, I'll lose over 40% of it to income tax. If I earn $100 I'll pay no tax at all.

      3) Taxation declare poor people to be worth less that rich and leaves them with an unlivable wage

      Taxation makes no declarations at all. If anything, as my previous example shows, taxation policy recognises people's ability to pay and charges accordingly.

      Meanwhile, taxation provides does with unlivable wages with a a level of support that keeps them fed and alive, so exactly the opposite of 'unlivable'.

      I will concede taxation is not sexist, it fucks all (poor) people the same

      As it happens.. taxation is sexist. Men pay three quarters of the income tax paid in the UK.

      So you're basically wrong on every single statement you made. I guess you don't pay many taxes.

  8. I've got my popcorn by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Please continue to discuss this topic.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  9. No executive will escaps this by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    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 a position of power is being called out it seems.

    Given the dick behavior I've witnessed over the years, I can see it being somewhat uncomfortable...but all these accusers are going to be famous and get huge payouts regardless of how they felt. I do wonder one thing...would men complain if the situation were reversed? I don't know if I would.

    1. Re:No executive will escaps this by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Who cares? Why should we shed a tear for some slimy asshole executive?

    2. Re:No executive will escaps this by war4peace · · Score: 2

      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 out, they might come for you some time in the future. Are you sure you've done nothing wrong by 2040's standards?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:No executive will escaps this by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2

      I've been at my job 25 years. No problems whatsoever. It's not difficult to just be a normal guy.

    4. Re:No executive will escaps this by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      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 pressure to behave, and more avenues to charge those who don't.

      I do wonder one thing...would men complain if the situation were reversed? I don't know if I would.

      This view is something that comes up a fair bit, and results from some things being very, very different to experience as a male than as a female.

      The reason you'd react differently is that you aren't constantly bombarded with unwanted sexual contact; of having to constantly check and guard to make sure that something you say, or do, or fail to say or fail to do might be construed as an invitation. Of being told that when something does happen that maybe you invited it, even unconsciously. You aren't physically weaker than many (most? all?) of the people hitting on you; you aren't likely to be physically forced, or to have to choose to submit to something you _do_not_want_ for fear of something even worse (rape vs rape-after-being-beaten-into-submission).

      Talk to some of your female friends and relatives. So much is just assumed it's rarely talked about. It's so constant and so pervasive that it's taught and passed on from childhood. It's this (and all the bits I haven't mentioned, and am only partially aware of) that makes the difference between why, as a male, the thought of being harrassed in the workplace engenders such a different response than you see in females.

      The best example that I've read to try to get to the point where it's closer would be to imagine that you work constantly surrounded by steroid using, weightlifting males. Hyper aggressive. Significantly stronger than you. Now imagine that some of them are sexually attracted to you. And like to 'flirt'. It's all in good fun, right?

      How comfortable would you be, in that situation, being sexually harrassed at work? How comfortable would you be with overhearing some of them making sexually provocative statements about you? The model is incomplete, but it tries to add some of the things missing from the 'if I were in that situation' exercise.

    5. Re:No executive will escaps this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      Have the rules changed though? Sure, you could get away with it much more easily in the 70s, but was it actually legally and/or morally okay back then? I don't think so.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:No executive will escaps this by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Possible reasons:

      1. You might not be important enough.
      2. You might not be powerful enough.
      3. There might be no advantage for anyone in accusing you (yet).
      4. Not enough time passed.
      5. The wave hasn't crashed upon you yet.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    7. Re: No executive will escaps this by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Care to define it yourself, please?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    8. Re:No executive will escaps this by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Business meetings in hot tubs were not standard behavior.

    9. Re:No executive will escaps this by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I agree. But why did everyone wait 35 years to bring it up? It's more than the time needed for murders to not be investigated anymore in certain jurisdictions.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    10. Re:No executive will escaps this by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Because he was going to get an award

      Plus it was detailed quite extensively years ago, so its not exactly waiting 35 years.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    11. Re:No executive will escaps this by war4peace · · Score: 1

      So, no different from blackmailing.
      "If you get an award, we're going to bring up the shit from way back in your life".

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  10. Steve Jobs came up in that culture by LocalH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guess it's time to vilify him too.

    --
    FC Closer
    1. Re:Steve Jobs came up in that culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As well we should. He was a fucking scumbag.

    2. Re:Steve Jobs came up in that culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bill Clinton comes to mind. He still gets speaking engagements. Why is he being rewarded for his borish behavior?

    3. Re:Steve Jobs came up in that culture by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Steve Jobs came up in that culture by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Jobs got plenty of criticism for his behaviour too, particularly towards his daughter. But as far as I know, he didn't sexually harass or assault anyone.

      I guess there is a line somewhere between being a poor father and being a sexual predictor.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Steve Jobs came up in that culture by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Guess it's time to vilify him too.

      But some animals are more equal than others ...

  11. This has been going on since the 80s. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I got ganged up on by female members of my class on a couple different occasions because of crap like this.

    You know what the irony of it now is? Women expect the exact behavior I was exhibiting then if I want to have a chance at dating them, only thanks to all that PC shit from then, I am still socially cucked except on the rare occasions I meet a girl online who is open to discussing all that shit up front so we have clear boundaries, because otherwise I am too timid and they get frustrated and go looking for someone who is either more assertive, a bigger selfish asshole, etc.

    Personally I would like all these hyper-feminist assholes to go marry each other, castrate their cuck male supports, and then die off, so we'll have a chance to find some *ACTUAL* balance between the male and female genders, rather than just replacing the patriarchy with the matriarchy, which doesn't solve anything, just causes the pendulum to swing too far in one direction so it'll swing even further back the other way next time the reins of power change.

    We need to stop the pendulum, not swing it ever harder towards the opposite end. Same applies with current party based politics in the US. Mutual respect seems to be as quaint an idea today as it was back in Bushnell's Era.

  12. Re:When I hear stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'white men'? Are they included in your little game? I bet not.

  13. Minorities by Kunedog · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Minorities by nickittynickname · · Score: 1

      Neither are Muslims. He's obviously meant arguably marginalized group that you can slap a label on.

    2. Re:Minorities by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Minorities by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      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?

    4. Re:Minorities by nickittynickname · · Score: 1

      You are right. I was thinking in terms of ethnic minorities. The commenter was mixing sex, religion, ethnicity and geographic origin. I was saying the commenter was referring to labels, not specifically minority labels. Implying that Kunedog was being pedantic.

    5. Re: Minorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cool. Caucasians are a worldwide ethnic minority by several orders of magnitude.

      Fuck you, and your racist bullshit.

    6. Re: Minorities by CoolDiscoRex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look around you. Count everything you can see that was invented by women. Now, do the same for things invented by men. Sweet mother of GOD it's fucking overwhelming. That 48% of the population could create damn near 99% of every technicaly innovation is absolutely staggering. Men and woman are not the same. Nobody short of delusional could claim otherwise. Equality of the sexes is a pipe dream, because the sexes are not equal. Let the women who need a man like a fish needs a bicycle go without male-invented technology. Everything from the car to the aiplane to the elevator to the toilet ... I'd be writing all day. Let the women who can do it themselves go without male created technology, and let them enjoy banging two rocks together trying to cook the leaf they caught for dinner. Men run the world, and they're allowing women to have their little delusion, mainly to keep the lower-classes divided and not looking at them. The moment they grow tired of it, though, it's over. They'll shut it down as quickly as they started it. There is no paradigm shift. Women don't have the ability. The fucking record speaks for itself. You induldge in this shit until the men have had enough, and then you go back to complaining about making 12 cents on the dollar or whatever the fuck you claim it is, and that's that. Without men, you'd be living in the fucking stone ages, and once they find a robot that will suck their dicks with enough plausible enthusiasm, they may well send you back. Sorry, but the truth is finally being spoken. You don't have to like it. The truth is not a popularity contest.

    7. Re:Minorities by Calydor · · Score: 4, 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!

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    8. Re:Minorities by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Women are not a minority.

      Everyone is a minority somewhere. Very few of these issues play out on a global context.

    9. Re: Minorities by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1
      That 48% of the population could create damn near 99% of every technicaly innovation is absolutely staggering

      That couldn't possibly have anything to do with women being systematically and institutionally excluded, oppressed, marginalized and stifled by men to protect their pathetic little egos? Women couldn't even vote in the US until the mid-20th century and it took a fucking Constitutional Amendment to do it. Women in Saudi Arabia have only just been allowed to drive cars last year. It's hard to innovate when you're up against a boys' club of cowardly bigoted shitknobs.

    10. Re: Minorities by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      Do you know who also is stifled and oppressed? Child geniuses. Yet they s seem to shine through the shit anyway to go on and invent the world we live in. This tired excuse that if only the world was exactly fare we would see an equal amount of productivity between men and women us bullshit. Extreme cases, of course, should be stopped.

      But the people that support afrimative action should be shot. The idea that a cat call would prevent a woman someday if finding the cure for cancer is ludicrous. We all suffer, some shine through. Others do not.

    11. Re: Minorities by Cederic · · Score: 1

      let them enjoy banging two rocks together trying to cook the leaf they caught for dinner

      While I don't agree with your main point, that bit did make me laugh.

  14. The Pioneer Award is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not as meaningless as the the Nobel Peace Prize, I guess, which was won by Kissinger and Arafat and not by Gandhi, but if it isn't given to the founder of Atari then it isn't an award given to the most important pioneers, full stop.

  15. RTFA by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    He acknowledged the behavior and excused it with "It's was the late 60s / early 70s, that's just what we did".

    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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:RTFA by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      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.

      And Bill Clinton would still be a respected politician and historical figure.

  16. Works for me by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    with the way he treated his workers in China I'm all for this. He was also an absolute dick to Wozniak and while the Woz forgave him I wonder how that would have ended up if instead of Woz eventually getting rich he'd been completely ripped off and left penniless. There's no shortage of broke engineers who's designs were central to the development of computers after all.

    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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  17. Not just for that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    There's lots of other reasons to rescind his status.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Not just for that by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      #metoo

      Are you saying "Pound me, too"?

    2. Re: Not just for that by nctritech · · Score: 1

      No, they're saying "octothorpe me too." You gonna get octothorped.

  18. There's a good argument to be made by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    for moral absolutism. If we can't look back and say "That was wrong and they shouldn't have done it" then we don't really have a compelling argument against the behavior in question. If something morally wrong is acceptable in context than all you need to do to make it acceptable again is change the context. Regression becomes easy.

    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. When it wasn't considered abuse of power but a perk. They call themselves 'conservative' but I'd rather they were labeled 'regressive'. Either way they exist, and they're working to make a world like the 50s, 60s and 70s real again.

    If you're a man its easy to look at these things and just think of them as awkward passes. You can do that because, well, you've probably got 40-60 lbs more muscle on you than the girl in question. There's interviews with women abused by Weinstein when they were terrified he was going to rape them. He wasn't, but not being mind readers they didn't know that, and, well, he most certainly _could_. Try to imagine you're alone with someone that has 50lbs more muscle than you and wants to have sex right now. This is a real concern for most women. It's also _incredibly_ uncomfortable to acknowledge.

    If you want to get a better idea of what I'm banging on about read this. But my point is there's a real issue here and one that men (and a lot of women) don't want to confront. But confronting it is the right thing to do...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:There's a good argument to be made by OneoFamillion · · Score: 1
      Well from a guys point of view, I would like to have sexual interactions with most of the non-obese 15-40 yo females that I encounter on the streets. That's just how my male brain is wired.

      I'm stronger than them, so in a natural sense, there's very little stopping me. True, our society has rules, but civilization and its rules are pretty new constructs. What IS stopping me from acting is, first and foremost, human empathy, something which we do not all have in equal measure. And fear of consequences, suuure, but that requires that one is capable of thinking ahead.

      We all have this biological urge, because there is an innate need for the human species to survive, and for that we need a man to impregnate a woman. Human society has added layers of complexity upon that, but that's what it boils down to. And like all people who've had good sex know, those layers can vanish in an instant.

      Because of that, man-woman interaction in society is sort of a grey area. Courtship can manifest itself in millions of ways, and there's all sort of tensions going on. Men are clumsier in the field of feelings, and often misinterpret female signals, if indeed capable of interpreting them at all. Also, as any old gigolo knows, the female mind is often quite malleable when it comes to what it wants.

      Hell, maybe the muslims got it right, women and men should be separated. The "empowered" women in modern societies seem to expect that they're only approached by males that they approve of. Sorry sisters, that's not how it works! You can stare at your cellphone all you want, but the real world is made out of shit and meat, and you'll still have to sift through a lot of that to find that precious gold nugget of yours.

    2. Re:There's a good argument to be made by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      "when they were terrified he was going to rape them."

      Literal delusions are not evidence of wrongdoing.

      They have the right to be afraid, just like when going to a scary movie. Clive Barker isn't guilty of assault because you found Hellraiser scary.

      It does not impute any wrongdoing on the part of the person they were afraid of; unless you want to be accused of rape by every woman who crossed the street to avoid a man.

    3. Re:There's a good argument to be made by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      +1 (no mod points right now) I was one of those "50 lbs more muscle" back in college, and had to be extra-nice *not* to scare away nice girls. Having a sister made a difference in my attitude to start with, plus the inverse Golden Rule: Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you.

    4. Re:There's a good argument to be made by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      for moral absolutism. If we can't look back and say "That was wrong and they shouldn't have done it" then we don't really have a compelling argument against the behavior in question.

      I assume that goes across cultures too ... good.

      So you care about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. And with all the recent "refugees", right here in the West. You wouldn't tolerate improper treatment of women among them, would you? You are outraged about that too, right? I'll wait ...

      I look forward to your campaign to reform American rap music too.

  19. Re:Frosty Piss = fake name massive human fail by jedidiah · · 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.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  20. Re:When I hear stuff like this by jedidiah · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  21. #CutThemAllOff by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Interesting

    At age 74, what chick did he hug forty years ago to deserve retroactive career extinction?

    1. Re:#CutThemAllOff by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      hug

      Well that's blatant misrepresentation of what happened.

      Given what happened is well covered in the comments, summary, TFA and links, I can only assume your misrepresentation is intentional. and the only reason I can think of for that is because you want to be able to engage in that sort of behaviour and never be held to account.

      Feel for to provide a different explanation that's actually consistent with your actions.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:#CutThemAllOff by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The links describe Sixties hot tub party culture of the kind that feminists of the period - I've lost track of what 'wave' that was supposed to be, but it was the one where feminists wanted equality with men - embraced just as enthusiastically. I know that because I lived through it myself, in its epicenter of suburban California. Today's retributive feminists are exhuming tales of that culture to settle current scores.

      We of the dark side get that leftists are not doing sex anymore. Though political values are not transmitted genetically, this means that, like the Shakers of old, you won't be influencing any future generations.

    3. Re:#CutThemAllOff by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      What the fuck are you talking about? The 1960s-1980s Feminists were "Second Wave", they were infamous for burning their boyfriend's porn magazines and holding demonstrations outside Red Light districts. Viz's "Millie Tant" rabid-Feminist character was one of their earliest, dating back to the late 1980s.

      I know that because I lived through it myself, in its epicenter of suburban California.

      That was its epicenter, huh? Bull. Shit. There was no epi-center. Half the major names were in the UK. Greer was Australian. Dworkin was from New Jersey. Gloria Steinem lived in New York. Are you mixing up the Feminist movement with the Hippie Movement? Because those aren't remotely similar groups, and yeah, Hippies were about free love man, but they certainly weren't about female equality.

      Today's retributive feminists are exhuming tales of that culture to settle current scores.

      Cobblers.

      My mother was involved with the movement in the 1980s in the UK, in a group that was so fucking anti-men that when they wanted to collate their magazine in my mother's house, questions were asked about my presence, because being a male I wasn't allowed to see that publication.

      Meanwhile my dad used to go out to buy cigarettes during the evening, only to be literally harassed by gangs of roving feminists who demanded to know who he was and why he was outside, because there was, apparently, a rapist in the area, and they felt that if women couldn't walk around freely, neither should men be able to.

      Those who laud second wave feminists as "pro-sex" or wanting equality with men have no idea what they were. I'm not saying all of them were like that, but they pretty much match the depiction of third wave by those pretending that third wavers are somehow extremists.

      Meanwhile what is it exactly that's an example of "Today's retributive feminists"? Because from what I can figure out, it boils down to "Sarkeesian wants more positive female representation in vidja", which is somehow the worst thing ever.

      Those of you who think Third Wave Feminists are somehow extreme have no idea whatsoever how bad the second wave was.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:#CutThemAllOff by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Epicenter of Sixties/Seventies hot tub party culture, not of feminist theory. At the time I was a lowly young renter, living in singles apartment complexes where the women enthusiastically joined in the fun, defining equality as being able to get as much sex, and under their control, as men. I'm so glad that my youth fell into that halcyon time. I pity today's young people, now that Nehemiah Scudder has won.

  22. Not all Virtue Signalling - better solution needed by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    I will admit that a lot of this is virtue signalling and the GDC organizers really haven't handled it well. However, we have a problem in our society where some men have abused their power to manipulate women and those women have had no other recourse. If your only weapon to fight back with is public shaming and destroying someones career then it puts the victim in a tough position. I'm sure most of them don't think the public shaming is the appropriate outcome. We as a society need to come up with an alternative tool for the victims and we also need to figure out what to do with the perpetrators. In Canada, what percentage of our members of parliament will we kick out before we realize that we had a system were a high percentage of seemingly normal men, when put in a position of power, behaved deplorably?

  23. The writing is on the wall by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1, 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.

  24. MORAL ABSOLUTISM!? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 understanding of history that when the moral absolutists of the 90s (that would be Christians) pilloried Bill Clinton for his sexual indiscretions and his rape they were mocked, pilloried and shouted down for their backwater moral beliefs and regressive attitudes towards women along with his #MeToo victims.

    Still don't hear many calls to take Bill Clinton to task, not even from you.

    Make no mistake, sexual harassment is wrong, demanding sexual favors for employment is far worse and rape tops them all - but so is attacking 75 year old men for their sexual attitudes 50 years ago when the sexual revolution and disco was still going strong for making passes at his secretary (not rape, not blackmail, not even having sex, just making a pass).

    TL;DR - You're just as bad as any religious zealot.

  25. Re: Stop pretending we're not human. by dskoll · · Score: 1

    So if someone coerces you into sex with threats of loss of employment or even violence, that's a choice the victim made? W. T. F.?!?!

  26. Nobody's changed history by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    A group of gamers decided not to honor one of the big wigs of the industry because of his past transgressions. Nobody's forgotten what he did, and that goes for the good and the bad.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. Jeez, can't win with people by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    If we suggest the government step in and regulate folks say let the market decide. Well, the market just decided. People think Bushnell's behavior was worthy of being punished for; with punishment meaning getting deprived of some honors he would otherwise be due.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Jeez, can't win with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How did 'the market' decide in this case? A small number of loud, perpetually-offended twitterers, along with the organizers of this award, do not make up anything resembling 'the market'. This actually sounds like the opposite of a free market. To me it sounds like a small politburo acting based on the yelling of some agitators.

  28. We're not chasing Bushnell either by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    he lost a GDC award. That's not exactly what I'd call the gulag. And while we're at it, we're not giving out awards for those commercials either.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:We're not chasing Bushnell either by war4peace · · Score: 1

      The problem is the confusion between the art and the artist, so to speak.
      Many, many people were complete assholes as a person, but they deeply contributed to art or science. They can be celebrated as scientists / artists and despised from a behavior perspective, at the same time.

      It's a witch hunt, nothing else.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  29. Re:Frosty Piss = fake name massive human fail by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    whoah... someone's drank too much Doc Bronner's.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  30. You'll have to excuse me by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    We treat them so poorly I just kind of assumed they were...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. They even wrote about this in old books by kriston · · Score: 1

    They even wrote about the Atari founders' shenanigans in books published decades ago about Atari.

    They might as well rescind everyone's awards just to save face, I mean, stay safe.

    --

    Kriston

  32. Slashdot Award by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

    Jesus, reading these comments you'd think there was a Biggest Dipshit Award up for grabs.

    --
    +0 Meh
    1. Re:Slashdot Award by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      --
      +0 Meh
  33. Re: Frosty Piss = fake name massive human fail by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    i knew you could use it for everything - shampoo, detergent, toothpaste, etc - but you can drink it, too??

  34. Re:Good Topic... by another_twilight · · Score: 1

    [Nolan is not a bad person..

    and

    I am not totally up-to-speed regarding this historical topic

    Appear to contradict each other. If you aren't "up to speed" how can you be sure of your judgement? The information you need to get "up to speed" is a click away. Right there. In the article. References to published biographies and interviews given by Nolan where he talks about his behaviour.

    Once you are "up to speed", then I'll be interested in your opinion, but your post is not the only 'I don't really know what's going on, but I'm sure it's wrong'.

    So, 'congrats' but your self professed ignorance does not make your opinion particularly compelling.

    In case the original article and the sources it links to are too much trouble to read, I'll summarise;

    No one is denying Nolan's achievements. They are criticising the GDC for choosing to award someone who has admitted to negative behaviour. The GDC has responded by withdrawing the award and Nolan has apologised.

  35. No, the only logical solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the new standard is that you can be accused of anything by any woman even 40 years after the supposed incident, NO EVIDENCE will be required, and because she's a woman who is presumed virtuous and honest simply because she has a vagina, and then the masses will jump to the conclusion that you are guilty and governments and other businesses will shut you down, all without a day in court, or any evidence or testimony or cross-examination, then the only rational response is not to play.

    It's simply becoming unsafe for any man to hire a woman, work with a woman, mentor a woman, etc. The Feminist movement is making women toxic and unsafe. We've gone from feminists demanding that wome were just like men and should be treated just like men, to feminists demanding that women are always honest and have perfect memories (unlike men) and that they are always the victim in need of special protections men are not eligible to receive. It's all very interesting given that so many leading feminists are also united with the gender-confused "communities" who claim gender is just a mental construct and that anybody can pick their gender and change at will from amonst (is it 57 now?) genders. Perhaps all men should announce they are really women trapped in male bodies.

    If somebody has a realistic answer about how any man can be safe in such a situation, in a post-America world where "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer operative then I'd sure like to hear it. Remember, any suggested alternate response from men must not rely on the legal system, since that system is not in play in these incidents. We're witnessing a tidal wave of very lurid accusations being used to destroy people without any shred of legal process and no ACTUAL justice in sight.

  36. Re: When I hear stuff like this by CoolDiscoRex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. Identity politics is the ruling-classes desperate attempt to keep the people from waking up and realizing that the primary bigotry of the last 40 years is class-based. It's still better to be a wealthy woman than a poor man. The former has more power. By an order of magnitude. Wringing our hands over the imperfect lives of priviledged women, when half the world still lives on less than $1/day, is the height of narcissism. Women make up nearly 80% of consumer spending? Think that would be reversed under the matriarchy? 90% of Titantic survirors were women, as men willingly went to their death so that women could live. Think under the matriarchy 90% of men would have survived. This entire thing is more divide-and-conquer by the ruling class. Given that "abstract thinking" begins at an IQ of ~110, and about 66% of Americans are below that, it's not hard to see how the majority of people got taken. The "War on Women" is a fraud, and so is the current moral panic. It's the preschool Satanic Sex scare all over again, only this time, the supposed victims are a coveted advertiser target, and the is much to be gained by seeing the emporer's fine new clothes. History will judge this as it's judged every other moral panic. When that happens, you'll all swear it was everyone else. Count on it.

  37. Re:Not all Virtue Signalling - better solution nee by slew · · Score: 1

    In Canada, what percentage of our members of parliament will we kick out before we realize that we had a system were a high percentage of seemingly normal men, when put in a position of power, behaved deplorably?

    I dunno, but they elected Rob Ford in Toronto, right?

  38. Re:Forgotten terrorists by slew · · Score: 1

    ... I applaud the GDC for ensuring that their institution reflects what is right.

    Anybody remember when the UK government refused to acknowledge a known terrorist; Nelson Mandela? Then there's that terrorist every American admires: George Washington. If you think wrong choices must be punished by the mob, fine but don't choose the SJW complaint of the day.

    The winners (re)write the history books, right?

  39. Re:Frosty Piss = fake name massive human fail by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, 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 much for people to understand that, and look at his work in that light.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  40. Another one bites the dust by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

    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.

    Today's values include conviction without evidence and honoring those who did not accomplish anything?

    It's depressing that this is acceptable boilerplate today when it would have been considered incoherent rambling in a more intellectually honest age.

  41. Jay Miner should get an award by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Even if he's got multiple boyscouts buried under his back porch.

    The Atari 8 bit and Amiga chipsets were a work of art!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    But seriously getting an award for a work of art, science or engineering should not provide legal immunity for other crimes. For example I liked most of Roman Polanski's films and he deserved awards for them. However those awards shouldn't mean he avoids prosecution for what he did to Samantha Geimer. You can be talented in one arena and still be a degenerate criminal.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  42. Re:Frosty Piss = fake name massive human fail by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Hi APK I enjoy your product a lot. Host files are great, but I have this problem with some useless ACs spamming on Slashdot as of late. Can your hosts file fix that?

  43. Re: When I hear stuff like this by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    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, salary, company worked at and so on and so forth.

    With all of those the same, switch the "white man" property for some other class.

    The concept of privelege is that the new janitor would be a bit worse off in some respects.

    Wringing our hands over the imperfect lives of priviledged women, when half the world still lives on less than $1/day, is the height of narcissism.

    This is utter unmitigated crap, and I have no sympathy for this point of view. It is the height of laziness.

    Not fixing the crap on your dorstep because there is worse crap elsewhere in the world is a lazy excuse for doing nothing. There is ALWAYS someewhere worse in the world so it serves as a generic excuse for never lifting a finger to improve anything.

    And unless you're actually doing something about those people libing on a dollar a day, it's also the hheight of hipocracy. "I mean yeah I can't be arsed to do anything about anything but those people over there trying to fix something should fix something else I think is more important but am too lazy/selfish to bother with".

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  44. persecution of the week by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    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.

  45. wtf by sad_ · · Score: 1

    Read the TFA (the one about 'a day of outcry' - https://www.theverge.com/2018/... ).
    What really happened;

    - Bushnell wearing a T-shirt that said ”I love to fuck.”
    - In a Playboy profile from 2012, Bushnell wistfully recalls the “wild environment” of the ‘70s Atari era.
    - The engineers at Atari codenamed their projects after attractive female employees; “Darlene,” the codename for the home version of Pong, was inspired by a woman who Bushnell described to Playboy as “stacked.” (was this common back in the day? the Amiga also has all its chips named after woman, maybe it's a form of flattery?)
    - They “held meetings in hot tubs, drank heavily, experimented with drugs... Sometimes Atari board meetings seemed more like fraternity parties than business meetings.”

    Good thing they are not handing out the price to Bushnell, what an animal, what a disgrace to the human race.
    What the hell people, who got actually hurt in all of this?

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  46. Re: Stop pretending we're not human. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    If it means getting rid of ignorant twats like yourself who tolerate sexual harassment, then fine.

  47. Re:When I hear stuff like this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Under the intersectionality regime, EVERYONE can be a victim except "the man".

    The whole point if intersectionality is that no-one is just "a man". Everyone is a mixture of things that intersect - gender, race, class, social status, age, (dis)ability, health, even political views and faith.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  48. Re: When I hear stuff like this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Suggesting that white janitors and white CEO's enjoy the same level of "privilege" is absolutely deranged.

    It is, which is why that's not what anyone except your straw man is doing.

    In this case the janitor's white privilege would be that if they get caught with a tiny amount of weed on them they are much less likely to end up in jail than a black janitor, all other things being equal. Of course, the rich CEO is even less likely to end up doing time.

    The word used to describe these interactions of multiple factors like race and affluence is "intersectionality".

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  49. Re:When I hear stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The whole point if intersectionality is that no-one is just "a man"

    And the whole point of GamerGate is about ethics in journalism

    And the whole point of MRAs is men's rights.

    And the whole point of Trump's wall is to keep out illegal immigrants (ditto any other Trump/Republican policy, it's exactly the good thing Trumpsters say it is, not what the haters and Democrats and late night comedians say it is!)

    And the whole point of communism is a state-less paradise where nobody is ever oppressed by a big authoritarian government.

    And the whole point of alt-right is about white nationalism, of the totally not racist or Nazi kind. They're just embracing THEIR intersactionality of being white and male and Christian etc!

    It's one thing to say what your idea means on paper, but that's just not how things are in reality (can't help but notice reality isn't on the list of factors you listed, lol)

  50. Can we de-elect John F Kennedy too? by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    I mean if we are going to hold history accountable for behavior that is only recently (last 40yrs) been deemed unacceptable, we might as well go after former presidents too. Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd, owned a lot of slaves before they were free'd. At one time we made crayons out of whale blubber, better shackled the handcuffs on the execs at Crayola. Benjamin Franklin owned a lot of slaves and had children from a lot of them, better take away his credit for inventing the Franklin Stove, or discovering electricity.

    I wonder if these idiots ever consider that the precedence they are setting will eventually get themselves condemned in 50 yrs. Who knows what things, acceptable today, will be deemed extremely taboo in the future.

  51. Completely out of scope perversion of the award ju by edris90 · · Score: 1

    Measureing the popularity of personal behavior relative to current social and moral trends as is completely out of scope for administrator s of this award to consider. Yeah the Integrity they would have dissolved this award system rather than pervert and distort it's metrics

  52. Getting tired of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is utter bullcrap... I mean ok maybe he did these things... but he 70+ years old.. it was the NORM back then. It was the 70.... just watch a TV show from the 70s... you'll see what I mean. Watch Star Trek the original series and you'll see plenty of case where today's women would be scream and tear their hair off. Okay he might have done terrible things.. but that doesn't diminish what he did for video game. If we start removing honors to all those that are critisezed for "bad behavior" well it wont take much time before we have a lot of awards and nobody to give them to. I mean being disrespectful to someone isn't a crime... it happens everyday... and Im not talking sexually.. . if you get cut in traffic is a disrespectful act... if you give the finger to someone, thats disrespectful... I mean we have such double standards its ridicule...

  53. Oh God no by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    just no. The left hate Bill. Not because of his philandering but because his right wing economic policies. He cut funding to schools, his Wallstreet deregulation lead to the 2008 crash (he broke down the barriers between Wallstreet & Main Street banks that allowed derivatives to go nuts) and he cut taxes on the wealthy. The .com boom and housing bubble masked the damage he did until 2008, but it was going to collapse eventually.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  54. Glad you asked by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    we should remove Saudi Arabia's status as an ally until they agree to fix their record on human rights, and that includes their treatment of women. And no, I don't care one rat's buttered behind if they say it's for religious reasons. I'm a student of Richard Dawkins (figuratively).

    And yes, I'm horrified by the treatment of the refugees coming here. They're escaping genocide.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Glad you asked by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      And yes, I'm horrified by the treatment of the refugees coming here. They're escaping genocide.

      The "refugees" coming here mistreat women. It's literally their creed.

  55. Bushnell doesn't need neo-cons defending him by Ranbot · · Score: 1

    Nolan Bushnell takes this bad news with far more grace than Slashdot's neo-cons. Rush to defend him if you want, but it looks like even he doesn't want you.

  56. Don't know about Spacy or Harvey by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but Clinton was conservative on the only thing that mattered (economics). That's how he got elected. Wallstreet backed him and he backed Wallstreet; cutting tons of regulations that eventually lead to the 2008 crash (which got delayed by the .com boom and then the housing boom). He also looked the other way while our jobs were shipped overseas, promising new jobs and training support that never came.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  57. BULLSHIT by p0larity · · Score: 1

    Of course you can complain. It's inappropriate no matter who does it.

  58. Re: When I hear stuff like this by CoolDiscoRex · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, cause you know all about the race relations of the janitorial class. Of course you do, you took a class on it, amirite? Not sure if you believe this or not, but there is a level of class in which the quality of life is such shit, that any notion of "priviledge" is completely and utterly inapplicable. The people who use the term "white privilege" tend to be those that are truly privileged. My God, look at the black incarceration rate and the wealth gap since Democrats quit (openly) trying to oppress blacks, and started pretending to advocate for them. If anything is clear, the privilege is all theirs. Affluent whites have been trying to scapegoat poor whites for their sins for the past 40 years, and it's grotestuqe. Few if any of tem have ANY IDEA how the working-class live, and ascribing even modest levels of their affluent priviledge to the people who live paycheck-to-paycheck is nothing short of grotesque. Keep the lower-classes divided so they never rise up and challenge the priviledge whites that are your parents and neighbors is the name of the game, all while the useful idiots that are their offspring run around yapping about the "priviledge" of white janitors who, what, get an extra cookie from the vending maching on their lunch break? You know, if there is a lunch break. But you really wouldn't know. Doesn't stop you from pretending that you do though. Fucking bunch of evil narcissists the lot of you.