Now I'm convinced you haven't even read them. That would be typical for a gator, too. Those articles weren't about that at all. They were about telling developers it's time to broaden their base, because gaming has gone mainstream. If you DID read them, then you failed to understand something that was pretty damn easy... and that's why I think you're either lying or you're dumb.
Here, I'll respond to this one in a different post, since you barely fixed your formatting.
I did read the articles. There's even analyses of them, online, that pretty much prove your point, that they were talking about (wink wink) "certain" gamers, and not gamers. I'll even ignore, for your own benefit, articles that came out that slammed "gamer culture" (there were a few), since that actually helps my point, due to "culture" being far more nebulous a term.
Here's the problem, and I'm going to take a page out of Postmodernism, specifically (social) Deconstruction, because you still seem to have problems seeing what I'm saying (which means you didn't read my post).
[1] These articles don't exist in a void/vacuum, they are embedded in a sociopolitical context
[2] These articles have an effect on people beyond their Author's intent
Following [1], the driving force of these articles were people, mostly white and well off (you have to be to live in the bay area doing things that don't ostensibly make STEM money), writing from a relatively nascent moral position (3rd wave feminism didn't start too long ago), as a response to those who they believed to be "culturally" and "morally" bankrupt. So the views we're going to get aren't really diverse (like Fox Noise's Republican message), it's going to be a fairly solid message coming from one specific (socially upper) class of people (same as Fox). There are always problems in the message, when the messengers are fairly homogeneous, as they are in aGG.
On a tangent, the lack of diversity from the SF Bay messengers (and other obvious disagreements) is actually what spawned #NotYourShield. For instance, you can see from my picture (hopefully), that I'm not white. Neither is my girlfriend. We came from one of the poorest places in the US, where it was madness to do anything but STEM because most where I lived needed to pull their family out of a bad situation.
Following [2], people are going to take the message and run with it, beyond the author's intent. The original articles don't exist in a vacuum, they cause people to do things, especially when the original message was one of imminent danger (like Fox News) from a certain class of gamer.
So the harm in [2], is that people, some being more emotional than others, would go further, as I mentioned in my last post, with:
[3] "Bring back bullying" (didn't say to certain people, just towards all gamers)
[4] "Gamers are worse than ISIS" (not certain gamers)
[5] "I literally feel like gamers are going to rape/murder me" (not certain gamers)
etc..
The most important thing to realize here, is that people who wrote those articles, (and worse ones that followed it making less of a distinction between all gamers, and certain gamers), is that these people have a moral responsibility to not rile up their base emotionally, to get to the point of [3], [4] and [5].
What follows is crap like that SVU episode, "ripped from your headlines".
It was socially irresponsible for people like Sam Biddle of Gawker to say things like he did, because he's not making a distinction, and that's the general attitude these articles promote.
Why can't you admit just this?