Image 01

emmanation

You like me! Of course, you probably don't know me very well.

Magic n stuff

August 31st, 2011 by biscuit

Why yes, I did read the Alyssa Bereznak Gawker article about her date with a geek.

Did you? If you didn’t read it when it was published, you’ve missed a little. It’s been edited a bit and there’s now an apology at the beginning. However, the point is the same. Alyssa went on a date with someone she met online and that someone turned out to be a geek.

Like, quite a geek.

Like, he has his own Magic: The Gathering Pro Player card.

Apparently he’s a world champion. There’s a whole battle. Reddit is PISSED. How dare a girl blogger on a nerdy site say she didn’t want to go out with someone who played Magic? I came away from the original article thinking that the author was overplaying her hand. She went on a date with a nice guy who had a hobby that she found… what, distasteful?¬†embarrassing? something. She tried to turn it into an online dating horror story, but she failed. Forbes called it ‘geek baiting’, and that may have been what Gawker was going for when the posted the article. Why else would a site aimed at geeks publish an article that was so openly disdainful? Even non-redditors are mad. Geek mom warns mamas not to let their babies grow up to date Alyssa.

I get why people are a little mad. She got kind of judgey.

The response she actually got, though, is absolutely insane.

Her article made her sound a little shallow and like she had nothing better to talk about.

It made Jon (the geek in question) sound like someone who likes games and, more interestingly, is super plus good at them.

She didn’t actually accuse him of anything he wasn’t proud of.

What the hell is everyone so pissed about?

P.S. If she was going to take issue with something about their date, how about the fact that he took her to a one man show based on the life of Jeffry Dahmer? Did he even ask first? What if she’s sensitive to cannibalism, dude?

Tags:

2 Responses to “Magic n stuff”

  1. Awlbiste says:

    A lot of the anger comes from the fact that she wrote an article about a dude, using his real name, without running it by him first. (We know this because he said she did not ask him or even tell him about it). That alone is just poor journalism.

    And also she comes across super shallow while trying to make him look bad and fails. It’s definitely geek-baiting. She’s laughing to the bank though because, as far as I understand it, Gawker pays per page view. So she was certainly successful in her ploy to get paid, even though she comes across as a really bad journalist.

  2. biscuit says:

    I had no idea that she didn’t run it by him (a fact I’m sure I would have found out easily if I’d done even two seconds of internet research – whoops).

    I also had no idea Gawker paid per page view. I guess my (poorly articulated) point was that she was basically trolling, and that based simply on her article, I found him to be a more appealing person. Her story wasn’t even a good example of it’s genre (the bad internet date).

    Again, poorly researched and articulated. Sorry and thank you for the additional info!

Leave a Reply