The statements are not analogous and, more often than not, require context anyway. Your cheap shot isn't clever.
have my imaginary mod point and/or mixed race babies
You're just repeating what I said.
Jesus christ, League of Legends AND Extra Credit? In some countries that could be considered a challenge to armed combat.
Yes, the design is irrelevant. The point was that games are inherently advantageous. I don't give a shit what godawful designers are doing to ruin their game's presentations.
It's not. Sports broadcasts have been laden with effects and embellishments for ages. Even if they hadn't connected these traits with video games the inherent benefits have nevertheless been understood.
Dota team fans exhibit a lot of national pride. The fact that Dota is so popular in China makes a lot of big tournaments a clash of egos between Chinese and western fanbases.
It's a consequence of being computer generated, the games can damn well have any visual and audio effects the developers please. Sports on the other hand are affected by the unfortunate circumstance of awkward silence and distant perspective. A game's shit design has nothing to do with it.
In other words dicking around is okay, so long as one doesn't drop the pretentious nonchalant act. Otherwise the girls at school will see how much fun you have and the jocks will tease you for it. Anything but that.
It's not nearly as big an issue as you'd assume
Video games are better to spectate than sports. Broadcasters have known this for decades, doing what they could to compensate. Gimmicks won't stall change forever though, sooner than later they'll have to face this fact. The real interesting stuff will be the cultural shift when video games start to challenge the popularity of athletic sports.
Ignoring the petulance of some of the comments here (there's no point addressing them) the reception the article got isn't entirely unreasonable. Wu speaks with an undeserved sense of authority, comes across as a smug supremacist hand waving away criticism. She uses the article as a platform to broadcast her frustrations and masquerades it as a piece on culture. She can decide not to take her audience seriously if she likes, but sulking over the response is demanding you have your cake and eat it, too.
Either you're implying that you really don't know how "so" works as a conjunction or you're backpedaling. I'd believe either at this point.
You're a good statistician and sociologist. Strongly persuaded by the narrow anecdote you used to support your loosely worded presumptuous conclusion. This is the quality bullshit comment systems were invented for.
I abhor the use of personal resources to aid any specific group of people for any reason. People should spend their money only in ways that further my own interest, I'm too insecure to have it any other way.
People trying to help others overcome inequality makes me sick.
If labor is abolished in the future she can kick back and lounge around in her underwear all day eating junk food and watching Netflix. It's what I do.