Gamer Gate: Three Stages to Obit

A lot of things been written about Gamer Gate. Some of them wrong, some of them stupid, some of them both.

A lot of the confusion (both accidental and malicious) is because Gamer Gate is three separate things clustered together under one name.

The Three Stages of Gamer Gate

Gamer Gate began in a relationship spat. Person X was dating person Y. At some point person X realized that person Y had engaged in a pattern of cheating and lying, and person X blogged about the dirt.

This relationship drama was the first stage of the GamerGate, and as a he-said-she-said tale, it's of interest only to the two people involved, and their friends.

The blog post, though, went beyond "she told me she loved me and then she showed she didn't", and alleged that the unfaithful partner had slept with powerful media figures in the small world of computer games journalism…figures who either reviewed games coded by the unfaithful partner, or managed writers who did review the games. The alleged behavior is (at best) a breach of common sense, and (at worst) a major breach of journalistic ethics.

This gamer journalism drama was the second stage of GamerGate, and as a sex-for-positive press coverage scandal (unproven, in my mind), or just as a "jeez, gamer journalism is as corruptly orchestrated as mainstream media is under Ezra Klein's Journolist" scandal, it's of interest to the tens of thousands of people who read and write game review journalism… which doesn't include me.

This is where things got wacky. And by "wacky", I mean "exploded like a barbecue grill when liquid oxygen is poured on it."

By my read of things (although reasonable people can differ) the charge that "games journalism is corrupt" was not itself inherently offensive to people on the left side of the political spectrum, but the partisans on the debate perfectly matched patterns of good and evil. On one side of the debate was a woman who was being chastised for her sexuality, and not only that, but she was a woman trying to break into the world of game development. On the other side of the debate were a bunch of low status men who did not agree that changing their micro-culture to accept women – women who wanted, after their entry, to change the micro-culture more – was a good thing.

Thus the partisans on the left side of the debate were enraged because their enemies in the thousand year culture war were not giving way to the forces of progress in the way that they should.

And thus we have the third stage of GamerGate: a good old case of Kulturkampf.

The Thousand Year War is Really the Million Year War

One thing that I find endlessly amusing is that the band of monkeys known as "the cultural left" uses Darwin(tm) as the ultimate rock to beat in the heads of the band of monkeys known as "the cultural right", and yet they do not – in any deep sense – believe in Darwinism. Certainly not in the multitude of actually dangerous ideas that spew from Darwinism like alpha particles from a just-slightly-sub-critical chunk of uranium.

…but that's (mostly) beside the point.

There's just one aspect of Darwinism that I want to (need to?) touch on today: sexual / group selection and alliance games.

In any species that lives lives other than the solitary, brutish, and short variety, members cooperate. Cooperation is often a utility maximizing approach for basic economic reasons: if I'm well fed because I had a good hunting day, and you're hungry because you had a bad day, a marginal calorie is worth much less to me than it is to you, so I should share some of my catch with you. This is true for two reasons: first, because if we're kin, your future reproductive success redounds to the benefit of (some of) my genes, and second, because you might return the favor a day or a year later.

Nature, however, is better at generating frenemies than friends. A better way for me to reproduce my genes is to use a mixed strategy: helping you when it's easy, defecting when I think I can get away with it, etc. I should ideally take food from you when offered, yet give back as little as I can get away with. I should be seen to be a good ally, and fair, and yet stab you in the back when I can get away with it.

In social species, there's advanced technology to accomplish these goals: I can marshal alliances, vote people off the island, harass males away from fertile females, seize more than my share of the food for myself and my offspring.

It doesn't matter if it's nice; it matters if it's effective. Gnon has no pity and laughs at your human ideals…especially because he created your human ideals to help you be a convincing liar in social games.

And thus deception slithered its way in to the garden of Eden and/or earthly delights.

What is the take away here? It is this: evolution has crafted every one of us for one mission: to pass our genes on to the next generation. The fact that you, or you, or you, have chosen not to have kids does not refute this; in fact, in supports this. Your genes will not be present in the next generation, and Gnon will laugh.

And what effects does this mission have on us? High libidos? Well, yes, some of that – but so much more. We're the ape with the run away brains. Any ape that just had a high libido is long removed from the gene pool. Only the apes that also are excellent at joining alliances, marshaling allies, sniffing when the winds are changing, and defecting strategically reproduced with enough success to have contributed meaningfully to our genome.

A million years ago this alliance-making skill meant being on the right side of the alpha ape…and perhaps sneakily supporting the up-and-coming number two male.

Ten thousand years ago it meant being a member of a hunter gatherer tribe, and making status-degrading jokes about the one guy who was acting a bit big for his (deer hide) britches.

A thousand years ago, it meant … well, by a thousand years ago, social alliances for status games were starting to look pretty damned modern. It meant cobbling together wacky alliances from diverse groups like Diggers, Levelers, and Fifth Monarchists in order to overthrow one set of rulers and establish yourself in their place. Once in power there are all sorts of food-and-sex optimizing strategies for those good at the alliance game… like enslaving the foot soldiers of the old regime and selling them into slavery overseas, seizing their land, and more.

tl;dr: I reiterate my point in my previous post in this sequence that the current culture war is a thousand years old, but that's just the tip of the ice cube that sits atop the submerged iceberg.

Gamer Gate as the most recent battle in the Kulturkampf

The two teams in the culture war have had many names over the last thousand years:

Barons and kings. Parliamentarians and Royalty. Puritans and Southerners. Yankees and Rebs. Democrats and Republicans. Blues Reds. Progressives and reactionaries. Social Justice Warriors and homophobes.

These English terms obscure the fact that these two camps are much bigger than the Anglosphere countries. My reference to Kulturkampf earlier was not accidental nor flippant.

One one side you had Otto von Bismark: a Protestant, a man who wanted government centralized, a leader with disdain for regional differences, a bureaucrat who created the first welfare state (Wikipedia's words, not mine), expelled the Jesuits, secularized the practice of marriage, threatened to arrest clergy who took political stances contrary to his own, radically expanded government schools, created a government run retirement system, and more.

On the other side you had people who were for lower taxes, smaller government, regional differences, Catholic doctrine, etc.

I could draw more examples from Russian history, from Italian, from French, from Mexican, from Swedish, but I think it would be belaboring the point.

For at least a thousand years there have been two factions in The West. The magnetic poles drift slowly, and no one compass points with perfect precision, but there is no denying the reality of the poles.

One pole tends (and note that word "tends") to be Protestant, centralized, "scientific", pushing for "the greater good", and "Blue" (as we say in the American language).

The other pole other tends (second disclaimer, same as the first) to be Catholic, decentralized, "traditional", tolerant of inequality, and "Red" (again, in Americanese).

Why two poles, and not three? Because we humans are honed by millions of years of evolution, and understand game theory at a level that we can not explain: small factions are crushed between the wheels, and must ally with a larger faction or be ground to dust.

Our forces have Technograd surrounded are pounding it with shame bombs, and our sappers are inside the walls

As a poet once said: Cthulhu swims slowly, but he only swims left. Isn't that interesting?

The blue team has made amazing progress over the last three hundred years. Occasionally by force of arms, but usually by a much more clever strategy: entryism.

Entryism, for those not hip to the lingo, is "a political strategy in which an organization or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being 'entered' is hostile to entryism, the entryists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are an organization in their own right."

Since World War II the Blue team in the US has entered into the stodgy old universities (taking advantage of the GI Bill and the resulting explosion in size of secondary education institutions), and taken them over completely. It has taken over the media (now called the "mainstream media" or MSM by the red team), because of this. It has taken over many corporate boards (although not all attempts have succeeded).

One advantage the blue team has is the aura of inevitability: as with small Iraqi militias or army units facing ISIS in the Levant, when faced with an enemy that wins every battle, one's priors must be that in the coming battle one will lose. Thus, the winning move is to immediately surrender, ask for forgiveness, and join the winning team (millions of years of evolution make us pretty decent players at this game of thrones, remember).

Over the last few years blue team has been rolling up red team's flank in a new battle: the tech world (or, pace Scott Alexander, they're actually trying to roll up the flank of a minor Red faction / ally that should perhaps be called "Gray": techno-libertarians).

This is a really smart move for Blue, as much of the economy has stalled out over the last ten years, and tech is the only area of growth. Who wants to own 90% of a stalled boat, when you could own 90% of a boat that's going somewhere?

The dismounted skirmishers of this particular Blue attack are the sub-faction known (pejoratively) as social justice warriors. (A quick digression: I hope no one reads my dispassionate "X attacks Y" as being particularly condemnatory of X for the fact of the attack. Humans are a social species, forged in the crucible of evolution. Status games and attacks are what we do. Red team is no more moral than Blue team, and they attack just as much…but because their star is not ascendant, their attacks are in smaller arenas and do not last as long. We're all nasty social apes on this bus.)

The current blue attack (or "pink" in a term coined in parallel by James Poulos) on the tech grays uses two tactics: entryism and status shaming.

The entryism is of the usual type: people with blue/pink ideals join red / gray groups and try to achieve social status with in those groups, then use that social status to push for the admission of – and promotion of – more blue/pink members. Once the blue/pink members achieve a majority they then change the rules of admission to create a lock on their new conquest (in the case of academia, for example, even blue researchers in the Netherlands of all places, were shocked by how blatant the process was).

The status shaming is also of the usual type: high status blue / pinks follow Alinksy's battle plan.

First, they pick a low-status target (rule 12). This target is usually a pale, bespectacled Aspergers-ish nerd) for a transgression against the norms they wish to universalize. The high social status pinks paint themselves as victims of a power imbalance, then they use their superior popularity to out-speak the target and push their version of the narrative. Pink allies in the media join in to keep the pressure on (rule 8). This is easy to do, because the act of social shaming is not only fun, but it's click-bait, so everyone involved not only has lolz, they has cheeseburger (rule 6). The toxic nature of the allegations is usually sufficient to make sure that the target of the attack does not get much, if any, sympathetic press (rule 12, again: "Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions".)

We saw this in "DongleGate", when @AdriaRichards told her almost twenty thousand twitter followers that she was offended by the rampant institutional sexism she experienced when she eavesdropped on two low status nerds, and the entire left wing media piled in to attack two blinking developers who'd been pushed into the limelight with out any warning. The two guys were fired.

We saw this when Gawker writer Nitasha Tiku took a break from making fun of mentally ill hoarders to attack some dweeb sysadmin as "homophobic, racist, misogynistic, classist" because she didn't like the jokes he tweeted to his friends, or that he'd dressed up as a brogrammer for Halloween. The guy was fired.

We saw this when the multimillionaires / Harvard grads who run OKCupid (the 420th most accessed website on the internet) used their megaphone to attack the bespectacled microkernel programmer who'd been promoted to run Mozilla. The guy was fired.

GamerGhazi is Arabic for Kulturkampf

In computer gaming the attempt at entry came by first establishing a few pinks inside the community (not a problem, because the world of gamer development did not think of itself as politicized), and then using these pink resources to promote, give good reviews to, and bestow awards on pink developers and pink games, even when the games in question are not "games" by the normal definition.

The gray flank probably would have been turned in short order (the smart money is always on pink), but the best laid plans of mice and men sometimes stumble for stupid reasons. The War on Jenkin's Ear didn't kill 25,000 people and sink 600 ships because anyone gave a shit about Jenkins or his ear – it raged because the tinder was dry and the spark fell in the right place at the right time.

GamerGate was, for about a hot millisecond, about a female developer and the fact that she cheated on her boyfriend with five guys, or, alternatively, about low status nerds slut shaming a brave women developer (stage 1).

…but it's not any longer.

GamerGate was, for about a day, about corruption in game journalism (stage 2).

…but it's not any longer.

Those topics are sort of interesting for the handful of people who care, but they don't provide enough fuel to keep a fire burning.

The reason GamerGate has legs is because it's yet another battle in the thousand year long culture war between red/gray and blue/pink.

Of course, to put GamerGate in historical context is implicitly to force the conflict off of the ground where the pink team has trained its guns. This is a tactical reversal for the pink team, and through a combination of honest ignorance and dishonest faux outrage, they keep trying to pull the gray team back into the kill zone, where the pink's well-tested tactics of shame and media outrage work so well. Thus we see tweets like this:

 


As I said at the time:


We and They

I'm not a Blue, and I'm not a Red. It'd be nice if I was crisply one or the other, because then I could give myself wholeheartedly to one alliance and fight the good fight. Instead I'm forced to agree with 50% of what each team does, roll my eyes at 10%, and be damned annoyed at the remaining 40%.

I support an unlimited right to keep and bear arms…and I think LGBT folks should pack heat to keep queer-bashers at bay.

I'm a social con who's queasy about tearing down the Chesterton gate ideal of monogamous heterosexual marriage…and I think that an ideal ancap society would have polycentric law such that six lesbians could all marry each other.

I like rural landscapes and salt of the earth people…but I live in a dense blue state so that I'm surrounded by museums, coffeehouses, and restaurants.

I bring all of this up to make the point that I'm not unwaveringly opposed to the blue alliance. It's done a lot of good things.

The problem I have is that the blue alliance has been on a winning streak, and with recent Blue success in gay marriage, immigration of client populations, university-and-media roll-up, etc. I feel like the culture war is over and the victors are going around (metaphorically) humiliating and shooting survivors of the losing side, and conducting mop-up operations. Witness team Blue forcing bakers to bake cakes and forcing photographers to shoot photos for partnerships that they consider immoral. Witness blue team arguing that innocent people should go to jail for rape, because – and I'm quoting Ezra Klein here – we "need to create a world where men are afraid." Red team men, I take that to mean. Football players. Frat boys. Not nice guys like Ezra.

"The people must be reeducated!" goes up the cry. …but that's not the reason for the ritual humiliation. The reeducation is merely the rationalization, the justification.

Orwell had it right:

 

"Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

As the paleo diet folks note, we are not evolved for the physical environment we now find ourselves living in; we are evolved for the physical environment of the savanna.

Likewise, we are not evolved for the social environment we now find ourselves in; we are evolved for the social environment of the small tribe.

Today, though, we still follow that ancient programming. We pick fights, we form alliances, we portray ourselves as the weak party (when it is to our advantage, to gain sympathy) and then we act as the strong party (when it is to our advantage, to humiliate our enemies and warn our enemies-not-yet-met-in-battle).

Humans be humans. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

…and that's all well and good, but the problem between a tolerable game and an intolerable one is whether the players shake hands as they exit the field.

Robert Conquest wrote a great book We and They: Civic and Despotic Cultures. He divides societies into two types: those that allow the vanquished their survival, their honor, and another bite at the apple, and those that seek to crush, in perpetuity, the temporary loser.

I'm certainly not asserting that GamerGate rises to the level of a totalitarian threat against all that we know and love. That would be ludicrous.

GamerGate is, however, a small battle in a thousand year war. The Blue team is neither entirely sympathetic nor entirely unsympathetic. The Red team is neither entirely sympathetic nor entirely unsympathetic.

However, the Blue team is ascendant, and it's a valid question as to whether it wants a peaceful rise. It's not crazy to note that Blue Team has used policies that arrest, deport, and kill "thought leaders" from Red Team on occasion (in Ireland, in France, in Mexico, in Germany, in Russia, and so forth) and to note that the ascendant Bright majority today is happy to talk about imprisoning or killing people who disagree with their conclusions on, say, global warming. Sure, the slickly produced videos of AGW deniers being exploded for their thought-crimes are meant as a light hearted joke, but many a truth is spoken in jest.

All things being equal, I'd prefer to live in one of Conquest's "civic" cultures, and not one of his "despotic" cultures. But if I'm forced to live in one of the latter, then it behooves me to play a game of realpolitik and back the weaker side.

I don't play video games, and I don't care about video game
journalism. But I know a culture war when I see one, and I've chosen
my side. It might be the losing side, but I'm still not convinced it's the wrong one.

[ Tip your waiters generously, and if you like my flavor of crazy, follow me on twitter @clarkhat ]

Last 5 posts by Clark

Comments

  1. Albert says

    On point. I am nervous about the future as well, because, of the many Blues I know, few would be willing to allow Reds to survive. Reds don't have that option any more, but I don't think that many wanted Blues to survive either.

  2. Marconi Darwin says

    I'm forced to agree with 50% of what each team does, roll my eyes at 10%, and be damned annoyed at the remaining 40%. …I bring all of this up to make the point that I'm not unwaveringly opposed to the blue alliance

    Seems like a good breakdown. Presumably a representative set of examples illustrating agreement with the red team to cover the first 50%, annoyance with the blue team to cover that 40%…hey, where's that 10%?

    I'm quoting Ezra Klein here –

    we "need to create a world where men are afraid."

    As am I:

    The Yes Means Yes law is trying to change a culture of sexual entitlement. That culture of sexual entitlement is built on fear; fear that the word "no" will lead to violence, or that the complaint you bring to the authorities will be be ignored, or that the hearing will become a venue for your humiliation, as the man who assaulted you details all the ways you were asking for it. "No Means No" has created a world where women are afraid. To work, "Yes Means Yes" needs to create a world where men are afraid.

  3. Dan Weber says

    Albert, it used to be that there were many axes. I might want to join you in killing my neighbor because of his religion, but you and he are aligned on politics, while he and I are aligned on occupation. But we are moving towards an area where geography and occupation and politics and culture are becoming increasingly aligned.

    We're having an election in my area for US Senate, and it's a proxy for a nationwide fight (and both sides hilariously tsk-tsk the other for having outside money) instead of really being about who could best represent us in the Senate.

  4. jtf says

    So I get that it was first about a relationship spat, then it was about a journalistic corruption charge, and then it was about… what, exactly, besides an eternal primate social dynamic struggle that parallels historical relationships and smells really strongly of Frank Dobbin's smothering monocultural Gestalt?

    Screw it, I'm just going to go back to obsessing over the World Series.

  5. says

    So I get that it was first about a relationship spat, then it was about a journalism charge, and then it was about… what, exactly, besides an eternal primate social dynamic struggle that parallels historical relationships and smells really strongly of Frank Dobbin?

    Is that not ENOUGH?!?

  6. jdgalt says

    I'd say this is a reasonably fair description of the overall situation (though it's a big oversimplification to reduce it to two sides, and I suggest changing the word "entryism" to the better understood "infiltration"). Its biggest omission is that the struggle today, not just historically, is much broader than GamerGate.

    The important difference between the two sides today is that the Red (and Gray) Team is now the tolerant side, willing to tolerate the presence of Blue games and Blue culture so long as they can also have their own. The Blue Team does not reciprocate this tolerance; they have decided that Red and Gray games and cultures are "sexist" and must be driven out of the marketplace in all its meanings (the market for games, the market for social interaction, and the market for ideas). And they're willing to misuse both the ideas and laws of the civil rights movement to achieve that destruction.

    This is why I am a Gray partisan.

    Let us all stop supporting the Blue Team's false pretense that they are victims.

  7. Craig says

    Instead I'm forced to agree with 50% of what each team does, roll my eyes at 10%, and be damned annoyed at the remaining 40%.

    For me, it's more like I agree with 20% (if that), roll my eyes at 40%, and get damned annoyed at the remaining 40%. The problem with most people is that even when their position is defensible, they don't usually defend it well, and they usually seem incapable of distinguishing between logic and emotional reactions. Even when they may be right, it's usually for the wrong reasons.

  8. David says

    Good piece, best and most thoughtful yet about GG. I wonder what it says that the "reds" in this battle are the ones that seem to (at least, appear to) espouse a more dialog-heavy, question-heavy, open-discussion mindset. It seems like the "blues" are the ones shaming people for not adhering to a narrative or for asking questions. Wonder what that says about the players and how this battle stands in relation to the last hundred years of this war.

    Edit: looks like jdgalt beat me to the punch in a few more words.

  9. b says

    Sometimes I manage to remember that there are any number of axes, not just red or blue or orc or human. There are other continua here: those who see the heinous acts seemingly focused on one side, for example, and decide they can ignore said acts in defense of progress or a greater good, and those who cannot make that leap.
    Or those who decide that this situation is currently beyond redemption, that this must blow over before anything useful can be attained. And those who keep digging into this mess.
    There are some who see a fluke here, fed from dark corners of the psyche and of the web, and those who see some greater significance.
    Some do and some don't see moral equivalence in the gatekeepers and the wielders of bad logic and hand-waving argumentation.
    In the case of this article, some will see sense and some will see a collection of links and ideas tossed together hugger-mugger.

  10. says

    @jdgalt:

    Its biggest omission is…

    Jesus, you people.

    I write epic 4,000 word Moldbuggian rants, and you complain because I should have included MORE verbiage?

    < shakes head >

  11. Dan says

    There are two kinds of people in the world: people who understand that they are one of two kinds of people, and people who wrongly believe they are a third kind.

  12. tweell says

    Progressives tend to ruin what they take over. That's why they have to keep moving on, like a horde of locusts that have eaten formerly lush farms bare. Corporate America is riddled with progressive dictats, and is no longer providing much sustenance for anyone, locust or ant. Marriage is a sham, the oath for life easier to break than a business contract. Men have increasingly given up and lost themselves in video games, so progressives obviously need to trash that as well.

  13. Pharniel says

    "Team Blue" wants to kill "team red" is functionally identical to "Femminists via the SJWs will not stop until we are destroyed" which is basically the gaters stance.

    But at least you're honest about what you want & are afraid of and admit it has Fuck All to do with 'ethics'.

    Which is why I respect you even if I don't agree with you.

  14. says

    I'm quite happy you wrote this because it has forced me to think a lot about Red/Blue. I try to take in all sources (within tolerances – eg The National Inquiorer may be telling the truth this week, but they've burned their luck w/ all the garbage before), but I still somehow end up with lots of reinforcement of my beliefs. I know part of it is psychology – even being told we're wrong ends up reaffirming the wrong belief, but something about the way you guys write on Popehat makes it easy for me to see both sides. (You guys fight a lot with Scalzi, but his posts about Amazon v Hachette have also helped me see both sides more clearly than any other source)

    I do have to say that part of what makes your article tricky as it gets near the end for me is the same argument that's often used by people on the opposite side of what I believe in: the slippery slope. Eg: people used the Bible to justify slavery and against the marriage of whites/blacks. But I doubt you'd be against that. So why is it different for same sex couples?

    At the same time, I definitely see what you're getting at with the culture wars and, again, it's tough. Clearly women do not get a fair shake at the world, but it's not clear at any given time whether the pendulum's swung too far in the other direction. My guess is that, like stock market bubbles, we won't know until after we've gone there and started moving back.

    Going back to the slippery slope thing, clearly there's a continuum and, you are an educated person so I'm sure you're familiar with the heap paradox. Start with a heap, remove one grain of sand is it still a heap? Until you're at the absurd place of calling a remaining grain of sand a heap. Clearly it is wrong for people to force women our of their homes or make them feel unsafe. But, as you point out, much less clear what the consequences should be for someone who is overheard telling jokes (sexist, racist, whatever) and did not mean to be overheard. I'd much prefer the people to be confronted to realize their behavior is disturbing to some than for them to lose their livelihood.

  15. Pharniel says

    jdgalt – So who's 'red' and who's "blue"?

    "false victim"? Do tell me about these false victims. There's so many. Why not cut to the chase like Clark and name some names.

    Because all I see is a fuckton of false equivalency. Calling something sexist and then having people choose not to purchase it sounds like the goddamned free market that Red is always on about. Red is all 'tolerant' as long as 'those false victims' stay quiet and don't make so much noise. From my vantage point team Red (and their Grey enablers) are all about rolling things back to the gilded age, or better yet, the start of the 19th century where a Man didn't have to apologize for owning another human being and women were barely better than property.

  16. Matt says

    I find this quite interesting. I actually very much get a "red team" vibe out of the entire article from Clark, even as it acknowledges that both sides are effectively politicizing a single issue and similar agendas run both, just with different wordings. Also, what is this sentence supposed to mean? I think we're missing a word or two.

    "On the other side of the debate were a bunch of low status men who did not see that agree that"

    I cannot find at any point where any part of gamergate was okay, from the beginning of when it was a relationship feud to when it became the weird hostile journalism situation to when gamergate was used as a pretense to threaten anyone at any time. Is it wrong to feel anger towards gamergate because that every time someone asks about gamergate and first makes an informed opinion within my particular social community, because I feel it's going to spark another debate which will result in someone being hostile towards the person who perhaps innocently inquires? I see this cycle. It's not a good cycle.

    I also agree with Ken in NJ that I'm a bit confused as to how blue team is considered to be both simultaneously suppressive while being successful and being oppressed. aka the "help help we're being oppressed" christianity pacman/piechart gif. I didn't really think that was specific to a particular ideal of red/blue, I thought the grouping was "slut shamers" and "people being shamed", not that it's a particular "team".

  17. says

    @Matt

    I find this quite interesting. I actually very much get a "red
    team" vibe out of the entire article from Clark

    Yep. If I have to pick, I pick red. But not with out major misgivings.

    even as it acknowledges that both sides are effectively politicizing a single issue and similar agendas run both

    Yep.

    Also, what is this sentence supposed to mean? I think we're missing a word or two.

    "On the other side of the debate were a bunch of low status men who did not see that agree that"

    Fixed: On the other side of the debate were a bunch of low status men who did not agree that changing their micro-culture to accept women – women who wanted, after their entry, to change the micro-culture more – was a good thing.

    I cannot find at any point where any part of gamergate was okay

    I don't think one looks at it and judges it as "OK" or "not OK". One looks at it and says "oh, so that's what it was all about". The same way one might read a history of WWII.

    and first makes an informed opinion within my particular social community, because I feel it's going to spark another debate which will result in someone being hostile towards the person who perhaps innocently inquires?

    The issue is that we live in a society with a 1,000 year factional war going on, and – I think – you don't want that cleavage plane to run through your circle of friends. Reasonably so. But it's not about GamerGate – it's about the culture war.

  18. Kevin says

    @Ken in NJ
    Odd that all the threats seem to have originated from anonymous sockpuppet accounts.

    Cui bono?

  19. says

    @Ken in New Jersey:

    Pretense?
    * Anita Sarkeesian forced to leave her house because of death threats
    * Brianna Wu forced to leave her house because of death threats

    I give individual people the benefit of the doubt, but to push back on the Blue narrative:

    1) I don't know for sure that all of these people (or even any one of them) actually received threats or actually left their homes

    2) I do know that at least one of the people on the list is a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention

    3) lying about death threats is not an unprecedented tactic on the left to gain sympathy. Google "fake hate crime" for dozens of examples.

  20. Josh says

    I may have just quoted your socio-political stance as being a better description of where and how I find myself today than I could have said myself.

    Bravo.

  21. says

    @Levi:

    I find it amusing that "tl;dr" appears around the 1000+ word mark with plenty more to go.

    Thats how I roll. And besides, prolixity is required if you're a neoreactionary (which I'm not) or want to play on the neoreactionary swing set (which I do), is it not?

  22. says

    Clark – I happen to personally know Frank and Brianna Wu, so anybody who tells me they are lying had damn well better have proof. You don't.

    I do have to agree with Pharniel – Team Red seems to want the free market as long as that market buys what they want it to buy. When it doesn't, then they seem to have a problem with it.

    The bigger issue with this culture war is that one side – the conservative one – seems to want to conserve a status quo that relegates everybody not a straight white male of the "right" religion to a second-class status. Personally as a straight white male I benefit from that. A majority of humans on this planet don't.

  23. says

    I am generally of the opinion that misogyny is a huge problem in the video game communities I've been in, and I think there's absolutely something seriously wrong with all the violent threats, etcetera.

    But I am not okay with categorizing "gamergate" as "violent misogynists", because I don't see anything to suggest that it generally is. I see specific people using the name and attacking people, but they can do that for anything. If two bored guys go on 4chan and start talking about how they're going to start sending death threats to anyone who criticizes Anita Sarkeesian, does that suddenly mean that anyone who likes her stuff is supporting death threats? No, it doesn't. That's not how causes work.

    The problem is that people seem to be trying to pick between "death threats to women are okay, there is no misogyny in the video game industry" and "anyone who says video game journalism sucks or that Anita Sarkeesian might sometimes be wrong about anything is sending death threats".

    And those positions are both stupid.

  24. Khaim says

    @Kevin

    Odd that all the threats seem to have originated from anonymous sockpuppet accounts.

    How else would you expect people to send death threats over the internet?

    The problem is that, beyond the general PA theory, people (or let's be honest, men) can send credible-sounding threats of violence with minimal transaction cost, and can do so anonymously. Most of these threats are empty, of course. But there are three key points that separate the examples given from @Ken in NJ from the usual "13-year-old spewing profanity in CoD" that you're familiar with:

    1. These threats are directly targeted. They're not insults of opportunity as part of a voluntary communication. It's the difference between someone who hates you flipping you off when he sees you across the street, and him mailing you a bag of dog feces.
    2. There are a fucking lot of violent threats against these people.
    3. Every so often, one of the threats isn't empty.

    The last point is really the key. When some guy screams at you in a game, you don't care, because you know he can't actually do anything. But when he sends you an email detailing where you live, where you work, where your parents live, and promising to kill you and your friends and your dog… That's a bit more serious.

    @Clark Which is the sociopathic liar? (And do you have a source for that which is not obviously biased?)

    It's certainly possible that any of them might be faking. I think it unlikely that they all are. Certainly my priors support "seriously fucked-up individuals dox people they dislike" more than "a bunch of women all decide to fake death threats".

  25. says

    @Chris Gerrib

    Clark – I happen to personally know Frank and Brianna Wu, so anybody who tells me they are lying had damn well better have proof. You don't.

    Indeed, I don't have proof. Which is why I don't claim that they're lying.

    Team Red seems to want the free market as long as that market buys what they want it to buy. When it doesn't, then they seem to have a problem with it.

    I agree with you on this. I used to think that Team Red was honest in its like for the free market. I've since learned that I was wrong, and no longer support team red.

    The bigger issue with this culture war is that one side – the conservative one – seems to want to conserve a status quo that relegates everybody not a straight white male of the "right" religion to a second-class status.

    Indeed. And the other side claims to want to achieve equality, but in practice, I see that they really just want to flip the script. Luke 3:5 is good theology but terrible politics.

  26. Fthagn says

    1) I don't know for sure that all of these people (or even any one of them) actually received threats or actually left their homes

    But you don't know that they haven't, either. And it doesn't take much digging to verify there were threats against Zoe Quinn herself. Furthermore, is doxxing alone not a reason to be cautious? They've already done it to Zoe Quinn, and internet types have demonstrated a willingness to point that particular weapon at anyone with a moderately interesting public profile. I would think a Libertarian-inclined individual such as yourself would find such tactics repellent and deplore them.

    2) I do know that at least one of the people on the list is a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention

    You're better than ad hominem attacks, sir. And I encourage you not to use them, because it detracts from interesting points that you DO make.

    3) lying about death threats is not an unprecedented tactic on the left to gain sympathy. Google "fake hate crime" for dozens of examples.

    What comes up is a litany of conservative press outlets that have consistently been platforms for racism, homophobia, slutshaming, and dubiously sourced reporting.

    This is your rebuttal, Clark? This whole article, and your replies, seem to be driven by pure pathos, as have most screeds supportive of the Gamergate movement.

    If you want to argue with people, do it more effectively!

  27. Ken in NH says

    @Ken in NJ

    Show me the evidence. I would be willing to believe that they are victims if the alleged threat materialized to actual harm and/or there were prosecutions for what seems to be criminal threatening. Yet, all that we are offered is the mere claim that they received a multitude of significant threats. Their own actions impeach their claims, in my mind. A prudent person who is truly fearful for their well-being would gather evidence and involve the local and national authorities when faced with numerous and dangerous threats. A person who does not take the threats seriously or is not faced with numerous and/or dangerous threats to their person may use the occasion to paint their opponents with a broad brush and claim absolute moral authority based on their victimhood.

  28. Jay says

    Maybe I'm missing something in this whole gamergate fiasco, but the whole thing seems like a giant non sequitur to me. Here's how I understand the logic:

    1. Female developer allegedly has a relationship with one or more people who may have been in a position to provide positive buzz about her game. (From what I understand, this accusation is actually fairly suspect, but let's just assume it's true for the next step.)

    2. Women are trying to radically change "gamer" culture, and true "gamers" are justifiably outraged.

    How exactly is #1 related to #2? If a woman has to sleep with the press just to get industry press, (a) that industry doesn't seem very "blue" in the stereotypical sense and (b) is she really a threat to a fundamental shift in the culture of that industry? Maybe I'm missing something, but, like I said, I just don't get how #1 was the jumping off point for this debacle.

  29. Ken in Nj says

    It's interesting that by making this post ostensibly about the broader issue of "the eternal culture war" and assigning the adherents of one side in this current kerfluffle to the much broader groups of Team Red and team Blue, Clark can then associate one side with the persecution and mass murder of Christians in Ireland, in France, in Mexico, in Germany, and in Russia.

    Wow. Well done, dude, well done.

    I actually very much get a "red team" vibe out of the entire article from Clark, even as it acknowledges that both sides are effectively politicizing a single issue

    Both sides are bad. Team Blue because of the persecution and mass murder of Christians over the centuries, and Team Red for… well, for something I'm sure. But what with Team Blue's amazing streak of almost nonstop victories and their subsequent celebratory hooliganism against Team Red, we don;t need to worry about examples for that right now

    Odd that all the threats seem to have originated from anonymous sockpuppet accounts.

    It doesn't seem odd to me, not at all. What does seem odd is that you use the word "all". You've seen "all" of the threats those women have been getting?

    But to address the point you apparently felt more comfortable implying than stating outright, Yes yes, those women faked those threats for their own benefit! How clever of you. I guess they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through when they asked the FBI to investigate those threats. I'm sure teh feds will be coming out any day now to reveal the hoaxes

  30. says

    @Jay:

    How exactly is #1 related to #2?

    They're not. That's the point. There've been many battles where one small scouting force accidentally bumps into another small scouting force, each side throws reserves in, and then – holy shit! – we've got the "Battle For Foobar's Mountain", when no one really cares about that particular summit. The battle happens there for no good reason, other than the fact that the war was already going on.

  31. says

    @Khaim:

    @Clark Which is the sociopathic liar? (And do you have a source for that which is not obviously biased?)

    I have zero interest in dragging any individual's name through the mud, and my thesis statement is "this whole thing is not about any one individual". So I respectfully refuse to answer that.

  32. Shane says

    Clarke I have learned more from you than any other human being. I am glad I have never met you.

  33. Ken in NH says

    @Fthagn

    You're better than ad hominem attacks, sir.

    Later.

    …Google "fake hate crime" for dozens of examples.

    What comes up is a litany of conservative press outlets that have consistently been platforms for racism, homophobia, slutshaming, and dubiously sourced reporting.

  34. Fthagn says

    @Clark

    I have zero interest in dragging any individual's name through the mud, and my thesis statement is "this whole thing is not about any one individual". So I respectfully refuse to answer that.

    Then don't say it at all!

    That's like listing out the authors on the Popehat site and saying "I don't respect these people because one of them dresses in a giraffe fur suit while moonlighting as a go-go dancer" and then saying I have no interest in casting aspersions. You've already said it, you don't get to act moralistic now.

  35. says

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sda6sr

    I'm ever annoyed by very good articles that were almost great.

    ClarkHat follows exactly the strategy I endorse. He crumbles the power base of the informal faction by formally describing what it is doing. Sophism is always unstable against this attack. I nitpick because I honestly think the whole is more than the sum of the parts, and thus if you get all the parts right you should end up with better parts.

    "(unproven, in my mind)"
    Of course it's unproven, but as the anti-gg's like saying on /pol/, real journalism has this problem at least as bad. It's not really about the five guys per se, it's about the fact that journalism per se is corrupt. All journalism is yellow until proven otherwise. Partly this is about the curtain being less well-guarded in the gaming backwater. Partly, it's because the side with the greater resources with which to falsify should fall under default suspicion. which is obviously journalists. All journalists should be considered liars until they prove they're not.

    "And thus deception slithered its way in to the garden of Eden and/or earthly delights."
    Good point. I like saying Eden is mythologized memory of the pre-agricultural world. But it could also have echoes of the pre-liar world.

    I know a couple words of cat. They never expect you to lie to them, they trust it implicitly. Presumably human ancestors were like that once.

    "Your genes will not be present in the next generation, and Gnon will laugh."
    Yes, the only point to life is base biological success. But it does raise the question of how you expect a blog post to help you have more kids. Priorities.

    "I'm not a Blue, and I'm not a Red. It'd be nice if I was crisply one or the other, because then I could give myself wholeheartedly to one alliance and fight the good fight. Instead I'm forced to agree with 50% of what each team does, roll my eyes at 10%, and be damned annoyed at the remaining 40%."
    Pff, Sturgeon's law. That's why I'm a Neon Hillist. If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

    "I think that an ideal ancap society would have polycentric law such that six lesbians could all marry each other."
    It's really none of my business who you marry. Unless I'm running an insurance company, and you want me to back your marriage contract. Then it's jointly my business with the laws of economics, which absolutely have an opinion on sexigamy…though I don't know what it is.

    "Power is not a means; it is an end."
    Indeed. Only power is addictive, not satisfying. Those who pursue power in this way go into the habituation death spiral of the addict.

    "It might be the losing side, but I'm still not convinced it's the wrong one."
    Ah, so we do care about more than raw biological success… Consistency, sir. it's startlingly powerful.

  36. nodeworx says

    Clark tries to place GG in a larger context of political battles, but while I am usually a big popehat fan, I think Clark is slightly off base here.

    GamerGate does not fit that neatly into the usual left/right (progressives/reactionaries) narrative as he would want you to believe.

    In the case of gg, there might be a tiny group of reactionaries (misogynists/homephobes/sexists etc.), but in the end it is less a differences in goals that separate the sides, than a difference in methods.

    In a sense, you could even say that in part at least the roles are reversed. While the anti-gg side talks a good game about supporting women in gaming for example, their actions almost exclusively have the opposite effect. The GG side in contrast has for the most part no problem with women in gaming and would welcome adding their creative input to the industry, IF it helps the industry to grow as a whole.

    So, while the narrative is that the gg supporters are the reactionaries, trying to keep gaming a purely/mostly male-oriented hobby, in reality I find that it is actually the anti-gg side, that through fear-mongering, censorship and slandering is trying to prevent the industry as a whole to move forward.

  37. Ken in Nj says

    @Fthagn
    Claiming that one (unspecified) victim is a known liar allows him to cast doubt on all of the victims. It also disallows refutation. And all without without having to provide a shred of evidence for the accusation.

    "Why should I trust your witnesses? AT least one of them is a known perjurer. And I'm not going to tell you which one"

  38. Jay says

    @Clark

    I suppose that makes some sense, but even assuming #1 doesn't really matter and everyone is actually only fighting about #2, what are the different sides? The outrage on the "gamer" side of things seems to be outrage at criticism, which I have difficulty recognizing as a valid position.

  39. Mu says

    Poor Bismarck, thrown into the blue camp. Clark completely misunderstands Bismarck's reasoning for all his "liberal" actions (like retirement and unemployment insurance). Bismarck wanted to keep up the status quo (aka the ruling landed class stays the ruling class, without interference by those pesky socialists, liberals and social democrats). So he tossed them some bones to keep them chewing on the leftovers, without trying to go for the filet. He had gaming theory down a century before it was invented.
    And when we look how much your average Team Red American loves Catholics we realize that Clark is completely colorblind, at least when it comes to political metaphors.

  40. Pharniel says

    Ken in NH – The King's County DA disagrees (as does the FBI/JD but they don't have a handy PDF). If you are the subject of stalking, harassment or death threats you should notify everyone you know. Document all of it.

    So you just keep on keeping on with your "They acted irrationally" instead of "followed advice from those who would be prosecuting the case."

    Also Clark – It's interesting how this is 'two sides' instead of, oh, one side (Gaters, the neo-nazi supporters and MRA/PUA trolls who formed the core of #burgersandfries) and a multitude of different organizations and individuals all concluding that gaters were acting like assholes.

    But that would deprive you of the Both Sides Narrative (that is often decried by…oh yeah, everyone) that allows you to favor team "bitches just wanna ruin our fun".

  41. says

    @Pharniel

    Clark – It's interesting how this is 'two sides' instead of, oh, one side (Gaters, the neo-nazi supporters and MRA/PUA trolls who formed the core of #burgersandfries) and a multitude of different organizations and individuals all concluding that gaters were acting like assholes.

    I love how you don't even see that you're throwing away a ton of complexity to get back to your team's own favored simplistic narrative.

    "bitches just wanna ruin our fun"

    Yes, that was exactly my point. Thanks for reading the whole thing and taking that away.

  42. Ken in Nj says

    So, while the narrative is that the gg supporters are the reactionaries, trying to keep gaming a purely/mostly male-oriented hobby, in reality I find that it is actually the anti-gg side, that through fear-mongering, censorship and slandering

    An interesting perspective. Remind me – how many of the GG folks have been forced to leave their homes because of rape, arson and death threats against themselves and their families? Which members of GG have the FBI been working with to investigate the death threats against them? How many members o the GG side have cancelled appearances because of threats of "If you do not cancel her talk, a Montreal Massacre style attack will be carried out against the attendees, as well as students and staff at the nearby Women's Center… I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs." against the school they were going to be speaking at?

    I mean, I'm sure there have been many, I probably just overlooked them

  43. thesignbit says

    For at least a thousand years there have been two factions in The West. The magnetic poles drift slowly, and no one compass points with perfect precision, but there is no denying the reality of the poles.

    This thesis won't stand up under serious historical scrutiny.

    The problem I have writing this comment is that I'm not personally equipped to provide that sort of scrutiny. But here's what I can do: you've constructed a model of the entirety of western history (!), so let's ask some questions of that model, using some of its examples, and see what it implies about the past and present. Here you've provided some:

    Barons and kings. Parliamentarians and Royalty. Puritans and Southerners. Yankees and Rebs. Democrats and Republicans. Blues Reds. Progressives and reactionaries. Social Justice Warriors and homophobes.

    I take the first example to refer to King John, the Barons, and the Magna Carta. Question: do the aims, motives, and means of those people look at all like the aims, motives, and means of the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States? What structural similarities do they share with the Confederate States of America and the United States of America in 1861? And Otto von Bismarck and the Catholics of Prussia/Germany?

    I don't think you'll find substantive similarities or useful ideas in those comparisons—you'll find superficial, non-structural ones. Consequentially, I think you're imposing a very contemporary progressive/conservative regime backward onto periods of history where it doesn't belong, onto people who simply didn't think like that.

    And I think you're projecting it forward onto the GamerGate fiasco, but I'm going to take the lazy way out and simply propose an alternate model rather than attempting to actually engage yours. Partially because you've said some things I agree with up there about the name-and-shame tactics that I don't want to accidentally look like I'm trying to refute. It seems to me like it started about Zoe Quinn and was ostensibly about games journalism at the time, but the people who picked that fight didn't understand that starting a fight over one developer's sexual escapades—without waiting for the dust to settle and the facts to become clear—was going to put them in the position of looking suspiciously like the kind of people who want to police a woman's sexuality. Not only that, but it drew all of the kind of people who do want to do those things out of the woodwork to say really, truly nasty things, escalate the issue to all corners of the internet, and really set to work torpedoing their own cause.

  44. Ken in Nj says

    Show me the evidence. I would be willing to believe that they are victims if the alleged threat materialized to actual harm and/or there were prosecutions for what seems to be criminal threatening. Yet, all that we are offered is the mere claim that they received a multitude of significant threats.

    I'm sorry that haven't seen fit to provide the evidence to you. Then again, I suspect they may not much care whether or not you believe them. They've apparently shared enough evidence with the police, and the FBI to make those organizations act as though there were credible threats.

    It's interesting how many people start from a position that presumes the victims are lying until someone can prove to their satisfaction that the victims are telling the truth.

  45. Inwoods says

    when we look how much your average Team Red American loves Catholics we realize that Clark is completely colorblind, at least when it comes to political metaphors.

    Strange bedfellows; that one comes down to the prolife bone the republicans throw. Catholics used to be very blue. But I thought he was contending that Catholics were small and red and Protestants blue?

  46. olympiapress says

    It's a little more complicated than that. Gamergate started, not as a relationship spat, but as a competence matter. Zoe Quinn is no more a developer of video games than you or I. Last year, she, and two partners, made a text-based choose-your-own adventure on the subject of depression using free online tools from http://twinery.org/. No programming was involved whatsoever. (Think of a '90s web developer who just used FrontPage and couldn't code HTML, let alone js or Perl.)

    Depression Quest's code was, needless to say, unoriginal, its theme decidedly uncommercial, its use of language trite (just read her description for grammatical errors). It was rejected by Steam, the Amazon Marketplace of downloadable video games, last December, and the subject of mockery in online forums. Quinn then began claiming rampant sexism was "holding her back."

    To counter this alleged sexism, a group called The Fine Young Capitalists undertook to fund a female-developed video game that would involve actual video game development. They had a campaign with Indiegogo, and the website 4chan raised almost $20k for it from its members (the /v/ group). 4chan was for its efforts allowed to create a character in the game. They designed a geeky teen girl with normal human dimensions. It was quite tasteful.

    Quinn was enraged by this project, and attempted to shut it down. She claimed that it was anti-transgender (The Fine Young Capitalists would only accept a transgendered developer if she identified as a woman. Brianna Wu would have been accepted, but not some guy who was just claiming to be a woman for the purpose of securing funding) Quinn'd also gotten her "sexism in video games" thing down, so Depression Quest, despite being uncommercial, unprofessional, and unplayable, was accepted in August thanks to the SJW-type pressure she'd brought.

    The game for some reason got glowing reviews, and that's when her ex-BF posted on Quinn's alleged sexual shenanigans with industry journalists.

    Then came the culture war things. But, really, if you're getting crap like Depression Quest shoved down your throat, and told you're a failure as a human being for not just accepting it, you're gonna be enraged, and you're not gonna give up.

    (I'm not a gamer, but I've been following this since the beginning. I remember loading the first text-based CYA from a cassette onto an Apple ][ in the early '80s, and was so impressed I wrote my own version of one in BASIC when I was 8. My program, however, had things like random dice rolls, where you needed to get a certain score if you wanted to get past the monster. My mom gave it very good reviews.)

  47. Ken in NH says

    @Pharniel

    Ken in NH – The King's County DA disagrees (as does the FBI/JD but they don't have a handy PDF). If you are the subject of stalking, harassment or death threats you should notify everyone you know. Document all of it.

    Perhaps you should finish your sentence. What exactly does the King's County DA disagree with me about and how does that compel me to believe these women when they tell us without evidence that a) they received numerous and significant threats and b) that this discredits their opponents completely.

    So you just keep on keeping on with your "They acted irrationally" instead of "followed advice from those who would be prosecuting the case."

    The quotation glyph usually signifies that you are quoting verbatim. My words are above for all to see and yet the word "irrationally" does not appear in my comment anywhere nor does the phrase "prosecuting the case" or "those who would" or "followed advice". Perhaps you have mistaken me with voices in your head?

  48. says

    That's like listing out the authors on the Popehat site and saying "I don't respect these people because one of them dresses in a giraffe fur suit while moonlighting as a go-go dancer"

  49. says

    Clark – so saying I do know that at least one of the people on the list is a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention isn't calling people liars? Sure looks like it to me.

    There appears to be a blue / red culture war going on, and it has been going on for a while. The problem is, in this case, Blue was playing by Red's rules (free market and all) when Red decided to change the game. None of the Blue players, even the woman who "started" this thing, wanted to destroy male gaming. They just wanted to have games that appealed to females. The only force of destruction has been male.

    The real problem of GamerGate is subtractive masculinity.

  50. Kevin says

    @Khaim

    Certainly my priors support "seriously fucked-up individuals dox people they dislike" more than "a bunch of women all decide to fake death threats".

    It's not necessary that any of these people faked their own death threats, only that whoever made the threats might not have been on the side of the issue that you assume. I note you didn't address the second portion of my comment: Cui bono?

  51. Ken in Nj says

    It's a little more complicated than that. Gamergate started, not as a relationship spat, but as a competence matter. Zoe Quinn is no more a developer of video games than you or I.

    I don't know exactly how GamerGate started. I don;t know what it was a few months ago and, frankly, I don't really care. I can see what it is now, and what is now is a bunch of criminals, channers, and mouthbreathers relentlessly harassing a bucnh of women and some nerds making excuses for them.

    I could not possibly give fewer shits what nerds think about their particular obsession. If they want to sit around yelling about people critiquing them, more power to them. What I do care about is the fact that instead of doing that, they've turned this into some sort of insane, fantasy-land crapfest that seems to run the gamut from victim blaming to criminal harassment and death threats.

    I don't care who these women are, I don't care who they did or didn't sleep with, and I don't care what they said about video games. There is literally no way any of that could in any way justify any part of the harassment that this "GamerGate" crap continues to fuel or the excuse-making in defense of the harassers. End of story. There's really should be no debate on that. There is nothing they could have said or done that would justify them being attacked like this, so I don't give a rat's ass what they said or did and I don't give a rat's ass what the underlying "arguments" might be from the people defending the criminals.

  52. Mingtian says

    and I think LGBT folks should pack heat to keep queer-bashers at bay.

    So much wrong with this.

    Considering that most LGBT folks are degenerates who consider ANYTHING to be "queer bashing", that's not a good idea.
    LGBT folks are also a small minority, I don't see why so much focus should be put on them or why they should "pack heat".
    They should just shut up, seriously.

  53. Demosthenes says

    This post is meant to fall on neither side of the debate shaping up in the comments.

    2) I do know that at least one of the people on the list is a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention

    You're better than ad hominem attacks, sir. And I encourage you not to use them, because it detracts from interesting points that you DO make.

    It is left to me, I suppose — since no one else has pointed it out — to say that calling Person X a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention is not an ad hominem attack if, in fact, Person X is actually a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention AND FURTHER has just engaged in a sociopathic lie for the purpose of getting attention. In that case you're just speaking truth. Outside of those limited circumstances, however, the charge would be a classic ad hominem abusive.

    Of course, since Clark won't divulge the name of the person, we have no way of determining the truth or falsity of the particular accusation. So neither side should feel totally comfortable about either applying or refuting the ad hominem label. This naturally means that both sides will feel completely free to apply or refute ad hominem suppositions as their politics and preferences dictate, with no regard for how little support for their position they can prove. Carry on.

    (This post was brought to you by the Alliance to Stop the Misuse of Terms Related to Logical Fallacies — ASMTRLF. We don't have a good acronym. We're still waiting on a new name, complete with memorable shorthand reference, from the Committee to Alter Names of Acronym-Deficient Alliances.)

  54. Ken in NH says

    @Ken in Nj

    They've apparently shared enough evidence with the police, and the FBI to make those organizations act as though there were credible threats.

    Yes, I see that the FBI is now involved. I blame my laziness for not searching for this before commenting. It is a good turn of events; so often people in the public spotlight will claim that they have received death threats but then no investigation follows. So, was the criminal threat made by the community at large or by an individual?

  55. olympiapress says

    There is literally no way any of that could in any way justify any part of the harassment that this "GamerGate" crap continues to fuel or the excuse-making in defense of the harassers. End of story. There's really should be no debate on that.

    But you're assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. "I was threatened online" is the new "I was sexually assaulted." A big part of the SJW schtick is to claim threats against one's self for the purpose of securing exalted victim status. Gamers live in terror of "saying the wrong thing," and commonly talk about that kid in TX facing 10 years for a threat he made in the heat of battle.

    I know you don't care, but if you ever get bored, read that email sent to Sarkeesian and tell me it was sent by a mouth-breathing, or indeed, a criminal, or indeed, a person who was born in the States.

  56. Kevin says

    @Ken in Nj
    So essentially you're saying "I don't give a damn about any wrongdoing by group A – if they're getting death threats from group B, then I automatically support group A no matter what, and am not even interested in hearing any details of what actually went down."

    Well gosh, it almost sounds as if the existence of that mindset provides a pretty good motivation for supporters of group A to send anonymous death threats to prominent members of group A, knowing they'll be attributed to group B.

  57. stakkalee says

    A "micro-culture" comprising 170 million American consumers spending $20.5 billion in 2013. That's the problem right there – it's not a fucking micro-culture. It's just culture, and everyone was always a part of it from the beginning, the reds, the greys, the blues and the pinks. The SJWs (ugh) didn't invade gaming – they were already there.

  58. says

    @Mingtian:

    Considering that most LGBT folks are degenerates who consider ANYTHING to be "queer bashing"

    And thus we get an object lesson that disarmament of civilians always and everywhere comes from hate of the underclass.

  59. says

    @olympiapress:

    But you're assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. "I was threatened online" is the new "I was sexually assaulted." A big part of the SJW schtick is to claim threats against one's self for the purpose of securing exalted victim status.

    Exactly.

    Blue team has cried wolf so many man times that I have to try hard to imagine that any given allegation of a threat is real.

  60. Walker says

    @stakkalee That's to ignore the distinct subset of people who define themselves not by simply playing games, but by playing specific games and specific sorts of games. To define "gamer" as "someone who plays a [video] game" is to write off the specific, self-defined subculture as nonexistent, and, thus, irrelevant. This is, whether intentional or not, to work in league with those who are attempting to eliminate this subculture from within. That said, I'd be happy to never hear from any actor (not commenter, not opinion-holder) on either side of this mess again. Yes, more and well-known Blues would be muzzled, but that's only good sense.

  61. Jay says

    @olympiapress

    Please elaborate upon how Depression Quest (and similar like "crap") has been "shoved down" anyone's throat. Did it suddenly and spontaneously appear on your iPhone one day? Were you required to play it before you could log into Gmail?

  62. Narad says

    As the paleo diet folks note, we are not evolved for the physical environment we now find ourselves living in; we are evolved for the physical environment of the savanna.

    Wholly erroneously of course, but whatever. Throwing in the zombie of the savanna hypothesis is a nice touch to leaven the evo-psych loaf, though. Why didn't we evolve to eat the abundant grass instead?

  63. Jenny says

    There are emotionally stunted guys who've never left adolescence, bury themselves in their games, and who think online harassment and death threats are funny.

    There are emotionally broken social justice warriors sociopathic enough to fake harassment and death threats for their Greater Good.

    I don't see any reason to assume all the developer harassment of the last several months has come solely from one camp.
    I see less reason to assume either represents the whole of the pro/anti sides of the GG kerfluffle.

    Political Manichaeism is for dolts.

  64. says

    @Narad:

    I do not see a single thing in that article that refutes my assertion that "we are not evolved for the physical environment we now find ourselves living in; we are evolved for the physical environment of the savanna."

    To clarify my point: our genome and our phenome are a lagging indicator. Yes, we developed the ability to digest lactose relatively recently, but that does not mean that we are optimized for today. There is selective pressure to optimize for today, of course, but that doesn't operate instanenously.

  65. Mika says

    Hi Clark,

    seriously, maybe I've got a German attitude, but you just completely and utterly lost your argument when you compared whomever you disagree with with the national socialist dictatorship of Germany (and by extension, half of europe) in the '30ies an early '40ies. Man, you don't even stop at comparing "Team Blue" to fucking Hitler, you actually say "Hitler was the leader of Team Blue back then". Seriously. That doesn't even. This is so utterly ridiculous, I can't even think if the rest of your article has a point.

    Well, actually I can. I do think your post has some merit. This idea that we put ourselves in teams and then just have the same opinion as everyone else in this team does explain quite a lot. And there are definitely continuities along certain lines. But, even with you using "tends to" instead of "totally is", it is a very simplistic story. The world is not as simple as this. You acknowledge it yourself when you say you don't actually agree with everything that "Team Red" likes. Hell, then don't join a team. I certainly never joined blue nor red. We have like six or seven parties over here with more or less 15 different major political agendas which only loosely map to party lines and I couldn't be convinced by any of them and I reject to pick one and stick to it for four years so I leave my vote blank at parliamentary elections. I really like the policies of somebody in one political question and utterly disagree with them in another. Do not pick a team, pick sound choices to make everyone's life better.

    Cheers,

    Mika

  66. Castaigne says

    @Ken in NJ:

    Seems pretty real to me.

    And let's not forget the leaders of GamerGate, the generals who issue orders to the foot soldiers in their war against the evil FemNaziSluts and their mangina supporters.

    =====

    @Clark:

    Yep. If I have to pick, I pick red. But not with out major misgivings.

    I am unsurprised to know that you are allied with fellows like Mike Cernovich, Paul Elam, and weev. Why unsurprised? Since you espouse NeoReactionary philosophy, it is easy to see why you would pick the Red Team, as you put it. After all, the victory of 'Red' will put women back in their "natural order in society".

    1) I don't know for sure that all of these people (or even any one of them) actually received threats or actually left their homes

    We can certainly ask the authorities that these threats were reported to. Of course, knowing your views on government, law, and the police, you would simply claim that said authorities were bribed to confirm.

    2) I do know that at least one of the people on the list is a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention

    Let's not be coy, sir, let's not be sly. Let us be brutally honest, instead, something which no gentleman of ethics would shy from. State truthfully the name of the person on that list that is a sociopathic liar.

    Which is why I don't claim that they're lying.

    Then which of the other people on that list are lying? Names, sir. Unless you are too cowardly to back up your convictions.

    I have zero interest in dragging any individual's name through the mud, and my thesis statement is "this whole thing is not about any one individual". So I respectfully refuse to answer that.

    So you say one of the list is a sociopathic liar, then refuse to say who it is, leaving the impression that it could be any one of the list. Or all of them. After all, who knows?

    How very "When did you stop raping babies?" of you. It's not hard to see where your sympathies lie. Do you participate much on Return of the Kings? Chateau Heartiste?

  67. says

    @Mika:

    you actually say "Hitler was the leader of Team Blue back then"

    uh…what? Can you show me where that quoted text that I'm "actually saying" appears?

    I certainly mentioned Otto von Bismarck.

    As a German, I trust you do know enough German history to realize that Bismarck and Hitler are two different people from two different centuries, right?

  68. Kevin says

    New corollary to Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer without violating Godwin's Law, the probability of a participant being falsely accused of violating Godwin's Law approaches 1.

  69. says

    @Castaigne:

    I am unsurprised to know that you are allied with fellows like Mike Cernovich, Paul Elam, and weev.

    I know of weev. He's the one who came out as a Nazi, right? I have no truck with socialists.

    As far as the other two: never heard of them.

  70. Michael J says

    Good article. One thing you touched on lightly but needs greater emphasis is that GG is a bit different to other battles to date. In this battle GG are the ones who buy the majority of the games (in question) and the Anti-GG crowd don't. So you have the case where the media overwhelming supports the Anti-GG crowd but the game companies know who buys their games and will continue to supply the games.
    Secondly, I think that a large proportion of GG supporters thought of themselves as (blues) progressives rather than greys or reds and are probably surprised to find the labels that they used to apply to others being applied to them. This has also been true of the recent events in US Atheism.
    Thirdly, some of these areas have a low cost of entry and aren't zero sum, unlike pressuring to change laws or infiltrating a brick and mortar University. If they infiltrate a Game Journalism site the fans can move to another site or create a new one. Take over a conference circuit then the speakers/audience can create a new one.
    My take is that either the attacking front of the Blue team will be disowned or a new group will grow taking from both the Blue and Red teams and most likely the Red team will disappear.

  71. Ken in NJ says

    "I don't give a damn about any wrongdoing by group A – if they're getting death threats from group B, then I automatically support group A no matter what

    With respect to the threats and harassment they are getting, yes, I'm absolutely not caring about any wrongdoing on their part. Much like murdering a drug dealer is still murder. Unless you can come up with some specific wrongdoing that they are guilty of that somehow makes the rape and death threats they've been getting OK? Hey, I'm all ears – because other than a small handful of extraordinarily unlikely hypotheticals, I'm just not seeing it

    But how you got from that to "I automatically support group A no matter what" is a bit of a mystery, as those things are not congruent

  72. stakkalee says

    I understand what you're saying Walker, but the problem with it is that this self-defined subculture didn't really define themselves based on a particular game or style of games, unless you define "particular style of game" so over-broadly as to be meaningless (what do FPSes, sports sims, RPGs and open world sims have in common other than being "video games"?) The "gamer" identity is built on playing video games, any video games. But video games have been around for over 3 generations now, and gaming (which had earlier been coded as a 'male' activity, despite the fact that women always composed a part of the culture) became a mainstream activity done by everyone. It's big business now, and the developers are leaving money on the table by not tailoring some products towards that new audience. So yes, part of the problem is that this self-defined subculture will become, has become, not irrelevant, but at least less relevant, as their dollars will just be part of a bigger pool of dollars from those 170 million Americans.

  73. Kevin says

    @Ken in NJ
    It would appear that your superpower is the ability to quote the first half of my comments, respond to them at length while studiously avoiding the second half, thereby giving the impression of a substantive response without actually addressing the point.

    When you join my superhero team, I believe I shall call you "The Amazing Whoosh".

  74. Pickwick says

    Quoth Clark:

    I love how you don't even see that you're throwing away a ton of complexity to get back to your team's own favored simplistic narrative.

    With regard to a relative few issues, there really isn't much complexity. Gay marriage is one–there is no non-laughable secular argument against it, and anyone wanting to argue that it should be banned for religious reasons has to start any discussion by explaining why their religion should determine other people's lives. Otherwise, they're rightfully dismissed out of hand.

    GamerGate is another such case. Clark, though I generally learn about some figures/events/movements I'd not been aware of when reading your pieces, I think you're off on the wrong foot generally with the historical paradigm that you're crafting. I certainly don't recognise either of the teams as you describe them. With GG specifically, the pro-partisans have put on such an exuberant parade of awfulness that the "complexity," all the "things GG is supposedly about," is the sideshow, a distraction merely. Nobody sends out barrages of death threats* or whiles away the hours using Photoshop to graft the features of a hated opponent onto hideous things just because somebody might have violated the ethics of gaming journalism to elevate the profile of a game which is not, by design, for a wide audience. Nobody would even be motivated to anything stronger than disdain if every detail so luridly spelled out in that initial post were true, right?

    I mean, right? D: Who the fuck has their priorities twisted enough to care about that?

    What GG does show is how easily certain parts of the population can be roused to fury, raging against persecution when they, themselves, hold the levers of power. It reminds me of Ted Cruz, channeling dozens of right-wing radio show hosts and preachers by warning his audiences that the day is coming when the government will start shutting down churches. Demagogues and their gullible flocks, and that is all that's on display.

  75. says

    @Pickwick:

    With regard to a relative few issues, there really isn't much complexity. Gay marriage is one–there is no non-laughable secular argument against it, and anyone wanting to argue that it should be banned for religious reasons has to start any discussion by explaining why their religion should determine other people's lives. Otherwise, they're rightfully dismissed out of hand.

    I suggest what you mean is "I haven't immediately articular a non-laughable argument against it, therefore there isn't". Which is Argument from ignorance. I personally have a secular argument against it, which I don't think is laughable.

  76. b says

    The more I think about it, the more the suggestion of "Entryism" seems both gratuitous and a giveaway. "Entryism" in this context seems the same as saying "they're not real gamers." Or is there a dipstick test that separates that tells you when someone spends enough time playing video games or plays them the right way to make their opinions legitimate?
    The start of the article bothers me too: the use of "alleged" comes a few paragraphs too late for my taste, and for someone as mindful as Clark to detail and nuance, I would expect some mention of a fact that many initial claims of quid pro quo were easily refuted as fantastic—based on my cursory reading, anyway.

  77. says

    @Pickwick:

    Nobody sends out barrages of death threats* or whiles away the hours using Photoshop to graft the features of a hated opponent onto hideous things just because somebody might have violated the ethics of gaming journalism

    Indeed. People only do that shit when they're fighting a full blooded culture war: when they see entryism, when they see themselves and their friends shamed and ridiculed by a dominant media which they have no representation in.

    We're primates. We play status games. And we lash out when we're being bullied in one of them.

  78. jdgalt says

    @Ken in NJ: Seems pretty real to me.

    You're blaming the entire Red/Gray faction for one or two punks who are so stupid that they think they can threaten people's lives and get away with it.

    This is just like the error built into the concept of Social Justice — which amounts to blaming today's [whites, men, etc.] for injustices that some other [whites, men, etc.] committed over 50 years ago. Go find the people who did it and blame them. I didn't do it and I refuse to pay the penalty.

    @Khaim: 3. Every so often, one of the threats isn't empty. The last point is really the key.

    No it isn't. If you allow a phony threat to make you run and hide, you give the kook who made the threat a veto over your life. Instead, if you're scared, buy a gun and learn how to use it properly.

  79. Pickwick says

    Forgot my * from above. In re death threats:

    * The Standard-Examiner ran a quote from an FBI spokesperson after USU scheduled a talk by Anita Sarkeesian and received a terrorist threat: "The threat we received is not out of the norm for [her.]" (I would post a link, only I can't seem to load any pages from that site today. It's easily found, though.) There's nothing symmetric about this.

  80. b says

    Okay, looking at the article as a whole again, I am beginning to wonder if this isn't Clark playing some sort of practical joke on us. I respect him too much to not be a little leery after adding up all the weird little niggling oddities in the text.

  81. says

    @b:

    Okay, looking at the article as a whole again, I am beginning to wonder if this isn't Clark playing some sort of practical joke on us. I

    Amusingly (at least to me) I get at least one comment of exactly this form after every one of my large blog posts.

    For the record: no, it's not.

    What sort of things suggest to you that it might be?

  82. Pickwick says

    Quoth Clark:

    I suggest what you mean is "I haven't immediately articular a non-laughable argument against it, therefore there isn't". Which is Argument from ignorance. I personally have a secular argument against it, which I don't think is laughable.

    Well, fair enough; absence of evidence, and all that. After reading a certain number of blog posts, op eds, and legislator arguments in favor of gay marriage bans, though, as well as reading Posner's decision and a few others, I think I've earned my confidence that I will have seen something like your argument before, though you are a well-read and clever person who might surprise me.

  83. Ivraatiems says

    Clark, you're crazy most of the time, but I think right now you're at least crazy like a fox. I'm convinced there has never been a better "movement" upon which to apply the maxim "the only winning move is not to play."

    I, for one, don't want to be dragged into the dichotomies. I want to say that it's wrong to judge somebody's ability to create video games based on their gender, and that it's wrong to violate journalistic ethics, and that it's wrong to send death threats. And I don't want to feel like I have to take a position on every little thing, or justify myself for finding some people credible and some people not in a debate I don't even want to be part of.

    But it would be fair to ask if we can even avoid playing this game – watching this blog for a couple of years, it's always amusing to see people try to lump it in with either team. And I guarantee you that by virtue of this article, people are going to try and place you on one side or the other (I think some of the comments already are).

    Oh well.

    At least you got to quote Orwell.

  84. Kevin Horner says

    Clark,
    I'm worried about you, man. I think you've had a stroke or something. You've fallen really deep into your elaborate fantasy world. Heinlein's libertarian stories weren't meant to be a world-view any more than _Stranger in a Strange Land_ was or even _Friday_.
    You need some help.
    Also, MRAs like the folks in Gamer Gate are douchebags.
    And yes, they are MRAs.

  85. Ivraatiems says

    @Kevin Horner

    Look at all the generalizations in that statement. If you were painting with any broader a brush, you'd cover the whole tri-state area.

    Here's some identically flawed statements from the other side:

    "All feminists like Zoe Quinn are lying assholes.

    And yes, everyone opposed to GamerGate is a feminist."

  86. Karmakin says

    For what it's worth, it's telling that you mentioned Scott Alexander in this post, as it might as well have been written by him. (That's a compliment).

    I'd call myself an Orange. (There's a reason for the color choice. Bonus points for anybody who can guess it). I believe in a progressive libertarianism of sorts that focuses on maximizing the amount of choice that each and every individual has. So I support things like single-payer health care or an economic system that maximizes the market power of individual workers (either through maintaining full employment or something like Basic Income). And yes, I don't mind some forms of collectivism in order to maximize that level of choice. In fact, I think it's necessary. I think you need to take away some choices to add many others. On the whole, we're more "free" not just from the government, but in terms of our place in society as a whole.

    GG'ers, from my experience are largely Orange, not Red or Grey. (Although there are some). The root problem really is female representation in gaming, both in terms of players/developers and in terms of content. Oranges…that is GG, are in favor of better representation, but it has to be done RIGHT. It has to be done in a positive non-shaming and non-culture war method. It's about EXPANDING opportunities, not simply taking them from some people and giving them to others.

    That's why by and large the objection isn't really about the stated goal…I think most people are fine with it. It really is on the method of how to get there. And I really don't think that Pinks are going to give up their tactics any time soon…they like the group cohesiveness that comes from it.

    So that's where we are, I think. The GG crowd, IMO are doing their best to try and ratchet down the heat on this whole issue…not like they get any credit for it.

    And I'm going to put it bluntly. You know those charges of Misogyny? Many GG-ers (including myself) think that one of the core notion of the "Pinks" that all women want and experience the exact same thing is in itself misogynistic. It's not a case where one side is feminist and the other side is anti-feminist. It's that each side both thinks they're doing feminism better than the other side.

  87. Narad says

    I do not see a single thing in that article that refutes my assertion that "we are not evolved for the physical environment we now find ourselves living in; we are evolved for the physical environment of the savanna."

    Aside from not actually having "evolved for the physical environment of the savanna," much less the dietary extrapolation, sure.

    Its also cute that you tried to get away with describing the Chief Technology Officer of Business Insider as "some dweeb sysadmin."

  88. Sam says

    Your biases show in where you apply critical thinking, Clark. You are completely uncritical about accusations of infidelity, and come to this conclusion:

    "GamerGate was, for about a hot millisecond, about a female developer and the fact that she cheated on her boyfriend with five guys"

    vs:

    "I don't know for sure that all of these people (or even any one of them) actually received threats or actually left their homes"

    I submit that, unless you have done some particularly deep investigating, the evidence you have for the two events in question (cheating, threats) is of approximately equal weight (ie, stuff posted on the internet) with pretty similar precedents (post breakup lies about fidelity isn't unheard of, lies about threats do happen, etc). In such a case, if one is to be held as an unsubstantiated allegation, they both should be called allegations, rather than one being a "fact" (even if part of an either-or) and the other being a "I'm not sure, maybe not, maybe sociopathic liars, but I'm not actually calling anyone a liar. Liar.".

  89. Narad says

    Perhaps this will help on why the savanna hypothesis is effectively a goner. I'm not going to bother with the primary literature for what is merely a failed lead-in to the comedy of evo-psych. Would you like to extend your position to embrace Thornhill & Palmer as normative?

  90. Pickwick says

    @Pickwick:

    Nobody sends out barrages of death threats* or whiles away the hours using Photoshop to graft the features of a hated opponent onto hideous things just because somebody might have violated the ethics of gaming journalism

    @Clark
    Indeed. People only do that shit when they're fighting a full blooded culture war: when they see entryism, when they see themselves and their friends shamed and ridiculed by a dominant media which they have no representation in.

    We're primates. We play status games. And we lash out when we're being bullied in one of them.

    I agree that primate status games are definitely on full display here; that's the lifeblood of gaming culture, such as it is. I was into semi-competitive gaming for a while, meaning I couldn't make up my mind whether to escalate my practice sessions and make money from it, as some of my friends did, or write off the whole thing as a futile exercise in trying not to be bored and dislike nearly every gamer I came across, on my team or opposite it. There are plenty of wonderful people who play games, and they've always been there, but lordy, the awful ones have always been the most vocal and influential in that crowd–some of the ones who currently feel "bullied" undoubtedly came from that cohort. There may well be a gamer culture war, if there is, the best outcome would result from gamer culture being nuked to the ground and rebuilt by the better humans amongst the gamers. I'm long gone from there, though.

    I think the massively-multiplicative power of the internet to generate momentary outrage has good uses and terrible, and more often the latter, and it worries me. I don't know much about the cases you mentioned, though pretty certainly not everyone who's ever been shamed in front of millions has deserved that fate. On the other hand, there's also no symmetry between being held up for ridicule on a trashy clickbait site like Gawker and being pursued across the internet and in your daily life by a stalking, harassment, and terrorism campaign led by people who are very good at channeling the internet's rage.

    Also, I think b makes a good point above, that "entryism" is a questionable way of describing the situation. It has the sound of conspiracy about it, as does your mention of Alinsky. (As a lefty, I have never heard a lefty mention that name or that book, except in the context of "Who the *$#@ is this Alinsky guy the righties are always on about?") Conspiracy doesn't necessarily apply here. There have always been people who like to play games, but who keep their heads down in the public spaces to avoid the effluvia flung by juveniles of all ages. Maybe some of those people are tired of having to jealously guard the small spaces of decency and good fellowship they manage to carve out; maybe they're among the voices calling for change. And maybe people who are newer to a culture should still have a voice in it. The people who, rightly or wrongly, view it as their own culture can confine themselves to "lashing out" in reasonable, proportionate measure, and might thereby manage to have a say in how things go; or, if they can't govern themselves, accordingly or otherwise, they can be viewed with a mixture of disgust and contempt and sidelined, and the culture will change anyway. There are too many millions of new people coming in for it to stay the same, and irate gamers lessen the weight anyone might attach to their views by making such a display.

    One of my worst impulses is to post and run without even editing properly, and I'm going to do that now. Thanks for the responses, and a good day to you, Clark.

  91. Jacob Schmidt says

    I don't think one looks at it and judges it as "OK" or "not OK". One looks at it and says "oh, so that's what it was all about". The same way one might read a history of WWII.
    Clark

    A noble attempt at dodging. While potentially true when dealing a whole, the initial formulation was this:"I cannot find at any point where any part of gamergate was okay"

    Which brings up a problem: to not look at this in terms of OK and Not OK, there needs to be substantial elements of both. If one is dominant, then we'd might as well describe the whole by the dominant characteristic, unless we have need of academic pedantry (as opposed to sophistic pedantry). Not OK is the clear dominant trait with GG, and may well describe the entirety. The elements that are ostensibly OK never seem to have any traction, which is a shame. Journalistic integrity is important, even for games; too bad GG can't be bothered to actually do anything meaningful about it.

    People only do that shit when they're fighting a full blooded culture war: when they see entryism, when they see themselves and their friends shamed and ridiculed by a dominant media which they have no representation in.

    This begs the question of why so much shit flinging seems to proceed the scandal. You can say GG started by a man posting about his ex, but it only gained significance when people started flinging shit over it; the latter is what brought media attention and, quite frankly, justifiable ridicule to the matter.

    … we lash out when we're being [feeling] bullied in one of them.

    For the most part, the GG's complaints of bullying are twaddle. Oh, you get individual examples of it, and I won't deny that. But those didn't lead to the "lashing out" we're talking about here.

  92. That Anonymous Coward says

    A white man once hurt me simply because he could, so applying the very rational decision making I see here, this means I should shoot all white men in response.

    This is the narrative currently running.

    A person did X to Y, and if you don't call out X or A suddenly you are part of a massive concept that dwarfs anything out there… including rational thought.
    A person was part of a group and suddenly they are promoted to the symbol of that group, and then that entire group is attacked before cooler heads make a very simple statement…that dudes an ass.

    ProTip: Nothing good will come out of this current pissing contest.

    Rather than contain ones praise or contempt to the individuals deserving of it, a mission/cause/whatever the f_ck you are doing has been born and we are now forced to ride it to its conclusion.

    Someone makes threat to someone, contact the authorities.
    Do NOT 'rally the troops' to strike back against that evil other side.
    Eye for an eye makes us all blind.

    Both sides are doing this level of stupid, has anyone bothered to figure out that there are a class of humans who enjoy triggering this sort of crap and watching it all play out from the sidelines, occasionally calling in plays to stir the pot?

    No one is a saint, everyone is a sinner.
    Can the grownups start acting like grownups already?
    Or do we need another reminder of what happens when ideological absolutes are forced upon imperfect humans and we burn it all to the ground again?

  93. Kevin says

    @Narad

    Aside from not actually having "evolved for the physical environment of the savanna

    Are you disputing the "savanna" characterization of Humans' ancestral environment? Or are you disputing the general claim that humans, like all other species, are adapted to their ancestral environment?

  94. Philosopherva says

    Not to take the discussion a totally different direction, but since your previous post referenced Albion's Seed and this post references the Iron Chancellor, I wondered if by chance you are familiar with the work of Paul Moreno in his book on The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal which examines in some detail the influence of the thought of Hegel on the course of American History? Not that philosophers determine historical events, but people find justifications for what they want in the thought of a given philosopher, and use them to help organize and extend their thoughts. Jefferson, for instance drew on Locke and Thomas Reid.

  95. Al says

    Well, it didn't blow up on the launch pad but it never made it past the second stage.

    "GamerGate was, for about a day, about corruption in game journalism"

    Boom

    This is about corruption in game journalism. The fact that the gator crowd was going after Zoe Quinn instead of EA or Activision should have been your first clue that this was never about anything other than keeping women out. And Scalzi's tweet was a direct response to a death threat that included her home address. Who exactly are the good people on the side of that?

  96. anon says

    The phrase "perfectly matched patterns" in the post is, for me, a link to a w3schools page on CSS selectors. I'd appreciate some sort of reassurance that it's intended to be that way and I don't need to root adware out of my computer.

  97. sorrykb says

    Clark, it would do a lot for your credibility if you didn't so early in the article repeat a lie. You mention a "sex-for-positive reviews scandal", and add a disclaimer that is was "unproven, in [your] mind". It's not merely unproven. It has been shown to be entirely false. An outright lie created by a vindictive ex.

    That's relevant. And in an article of this length, I'd think there'd be room to mention it.

  98. Homer in EU says

    Wow, fuck you for turning women getting death and rape and school shooting threats into a US-based political essay that goes veers wildly off-track within a few sentences, and then questioning that these threats even existed, and if they did, weren't created by those same women to make themselves look like victims.

    Play the victim card? When has the victim card WORKED? Never, because we blame the victims, as you do so nicely here.

    Women at my office are unable to attend industry events because of this bullshit. They make video games. Video games that people LIKE. So that is apparently reason for people to kill them. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. You can't somehow make US politics work for the entire world, where this is playing out, even with pseudo-science of evolutionary psychology (which has been debunked so many times it's like trying to say that vaccines cause autism).

  99. Oso says

    Aligning Scott's Grey Tribe with the Red side of your model (which seems similar in most but not all respects to Scott's Red Tribe) doesn't seem accurate. He writes :

    (There is a partly-formed attempt to spin off a Grey Tribe typified by libertarian political beliefs, Dawkins-style atheism, vague annoyance that the question of gay rights even comes up, eating paleo, drinking Soylent, calling in rides on Uber, reading lots of blogs, calling American football “sportsball”, getting conspicuously upset about the War on Drugs and the NSA, and listening to filk – but for our current purposes this is a distraction and they can safely be considered part of the Blue Tribe most of the time)

    This seems correct, at least in terms of the cultural categories he's trying to define. On the other hand, in the last part of the post he talks about the Blue Tribe as his/the Grey Tribe's outgroup, and earlier he says,

    We noted that outgroups are rarely literally “the group most different from you”, and in fact far more likely to be groups very similar to you sharing almost all your characteristics and living in the same area.

    So it makes sense, to the extent that Scott is right, that there should be conflict between the Blue and Grey Tribes, but it's not because the Grey Tribe is more closely aligned with Red.

  100. Justin says

    @Kevin

    Well then allow me to introduce you to an obscure leftist you've probably never heard of before.

    In other words, forty-three years ago a 23 year old wrote a letter, which Alinsky apparently never even read, informing him that she had graduated law school, which he had suggested she not attend. Quite the smoking gun you've uncovered there.

  101. Inwoods says

    @sorrykb

    It's not merely unproven. It has been shown to be entirely false. An outright lie created by a vindictive ex.

    First I have heard of this. Can you link to a source? Frankly, I was much more bothered by Zoe's attack on other groups like Fine Young Journalists, but I hadn't seen anyone with proof one way or the other about her in a relationship with journalists.

  102. Ken in NJ says

    It would appear that your superpower is the ability to quote the first half of my comments, respond to them at length while studiously avoiding the second half, thereby giving the impression of a substantive response without actually addressing the point.

    When you join my superhero team, I believe I shall call you "The Amazing Whoosh".

    I responded to your initial premise, where you attempt to summarize my position and failed. It appears that your superpower is to not understand that when your very first premise is shown to be incorrect, it's not necessary to address any conclusions that are drawn from it. Based on that, I can't imagine very many folks would want to be on your superhero team.

    But you keep on with the wonderful conspiracy theory you're working out that involves them faking those threats for attention. Maybe you could combine your talking point with @jdgalt (ISOLATED INCIDENTS, IT WAS JUST "ONE OR TWO PUNKS") and take your show on the road

  103. Kevin says

    @Justin
    Heh… they clearly had a personal relationship (mentor/mentee style) sufficient that his personal secretary recognized her name and flagged her letters for special attention, and his writings were clearly quite formative for her.

    But sure, whatever gets you through the night.

  104. Kevin says

    @sorrykb
    No. The supposed "debunking" was just that the person she slept with didn't actually write the review himself, personally. Which was never alleged. That's called a "straw man". She DID sleep with someone at Kotaku, a media outlet which then went on to write a positive review.

    Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe not. Hence "unproven".

  105. Sam says

    @Inwoods:

    First I have heard of this. Can you link to a source? Frankly, I was much more bothered by Zoe's attack on other groups like Fine Young Journalists, but I hadn't seen anyone with proof one way or the other about her in a relationship with journalists.

    This is Clark's fine attempt to slip one under the radar. He is trying to pass it off as a proven fact that there was infidelity in a relationship between two people (Eron Gjoni and Zoe Quinn) by admitting that the allegations are unproven that this supposed infidelity was for the purpose of favorable coverage. Take it as fact that there was infidelity, accept that the *purpose* of said infidelity is unproven, despite the "evidence" for both claims coming from exactly the same source.

    As far as what is confirmed, there was some romantic involvement between Zoe and Grayson, as confirmed by statements from Grayson (whether it was infideltiy or not isn't, however), but the timeline simply does not work out for this to be a "quid pro quo" type thing, nor did Grayson write favorable coverage of Zoe or Depression Quest.

    And it is the "Fine Young Capitalists" that have supposedly been "attacked" by Zoe. It is a pretty weak definition of "attack" at the very best. Try "criticized on twitter".

  106. Ken in NJ says

    She DID sleep with someone at Kotaku, a media outlet which then went on to write a positive review.

    Except that no, that never happened.

    "Having spoken to Nathan several times, having looked closely at the numerous messages sent our way by concerned readers and, having compared published timelines, our leadership team finds no compelling evidence that any of that is true.

    On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review"
    Stephen Totilo, Kotaku Editor in Chief

    I might be wrong of course – you have a link to a positive review of Quinn's game on Kotaku?

  107. Sam says

    No. The supposed "debunking" was just that the person she slept with didn't actually write the review himself, personally. Which was never alleged. That's called a "straw man". She DID sleep with someone at Kotaku, a media outlet which then went on to write a positive review.

    So, sexual relations with *anyone* at any kind of jounalistic outfit means that coverage is suspect? Talk about moving the goalposts. Do contributors to such publications need to register all of their relationships in some way to avoid this kind of terrible conflict to meet some supposed ethical concern? Talk about moving the goalposts.

    And BTW, I call bullpuckey on the "never alleged", above. It was repeatedly and strenuously alleged.

  108. Kevin says

    @Ken in NJ

    I might be wrong of course – you have a link to a positive review of Quinn's game on Kotaku?

    Sure, here.

    It's pretty weak sauce, but it DOES exist, contrary to "debunkings". Certainly nothing worth starting a months-long shitshow over, but again, per OP, it's not actually what GG was about for more than a millisecond.

  109. David Lang says

    @Pickwick
    [quote]
    Forgot my * from above. In re death threats:

    * The Standard-Examiner ran a quote from an FBI spokesperson after USU scheduled a talk by Anita Sarkeesian and received a terrorist threat: "The threat we received is not out of the norm for [her.]"
    [/quote]

    and after she canceled that scheduled talk it was discussed that the threats (related to that talk) were found to be not credible.

  110. Dave Crisp says

    Demosthenes @ 3:19:

    It is left to me, I suppose — since no one else has pointed it out — to say that calling Person X a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention is not an ad hominem attack if, in fact, Person X is actually a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention AND FURTHER has just engaged in a sociopathic lie for the purpose of getting attention. In that case you're just speaking truth. Outside of those limited circumstances, however, the charge would be a classic ad hominem abusive.

    Technically it is still an ad hominem – you're dismissing the argument based on a (perceived) quality of the arguer rather than addressing its substance – it's just not necessarily a fallacious one.

  111. Sami says

    I like how you claim it's not about any individual, but open with the assumption that the claims of infidelity are true.

    Where by "like" I mean "was tempted to ignore the rest completely, on the assumption that you're going to join the forces of Misogynist Assholery, since you appear to assume that just because a dicksplash like person X claims someone was cheating, it is therefore true".

  112. Rick says

    Instead I'm forced to agree with 50% of what each team does, roll my eyes at 10%, and be damned annoyed at the remaining 40%.

    I'm forced to agree with 40% of what each team does, am annoyed at 60%, and roll my eyes at 100% of it.

  113. The Man in the Mask says

    First, I chuckled to see George Goble's experiments in BBQ grill speed ignition mentioned: I was there when that video was recorded and it was IMPRESSIVE. George went on to win an Ignobel Prize for his applied research in this field, by the way.

    Second, I've spent a good portion of the past few decades researching the very worst people on the Internet: spammers, phishers, scammers, extortionists, and so on. Much of that research has focused on the technical aspects of their operations, but I've found it necessary to delve into their personas as well — because it's not possible to truly understand what they do unless I have some clue why they do it. The time I'm invested has thus given me a working knowledge of both methods and motives.

    With that in mind, I've read the reports of the threats against Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn, et.al., and I find them credible. That does not mean that I've concluded that those reports are accurate in every last detail: it does mean that I find nothing in them to cause me to raise an eyebrow in skepticism. The manner, tone, wording, delivery, everything is consistent with what I've observed (too many times to count).

    I suppose these could all be carefully-crafted forgeries generated as part of a conspiracy between these women, but that seems entirely dubious and far-fetched. Occam's Razor suggests that they are, in fact, real threats issued by real people, and THAT is a problem for law enforcement to address — hopefully in a prompt, professional and thorough manner.

  114. Paul Moloney says

    I respect him too much to not be a little leery after adding up all the weird little niggling oddities in the text.

    This whole blog and other utterances on Twitter are so out of the norm I'm suspecting alien abduction. Like claims that the royalist, reactionary conservative – but pragmatic – Otto Von Bismark (sic) was some kind of early SJW (he implemented a welfare system, yes, but purely to keep the working classes from supporting socialism). The whole thing seems a rambling attempt to project the current breakdown of US politics onto world history.

    p.

  115. Ken in Nj says

    It's pretty weak sauce, but it DOES exist, contrary to "debunkings".

    Thanks, I'll keep that article in mind in future discussions. But it is weaksauce. "Even so, I found Depression Quest to be a laudable effort, and I think it can be an effective tool" does count as a positive review. but that is supposed to be the scandalous and shocking output of a sex-for-good reviews scandal? Please

    Also, the guy who wrote that article — Phil Owen — isn't a Kotaku employee (not to mention that I haven't seen any accusations that Quinn had sex with him), it was a guest editorial. So the only scandal I can figure would be if Quinn was having sex with the editor who approved that article at the time it was published – Stephen Totilo or Kirk Hamilton. I haven't seen anyone claiming that she slept with them, either. So yeah, I see nothing that changes my mind from "it never happened, it's completely fabricated bullshit"

    But again, I'm open to additional evidence if anyone has it.

  116. Jacob Schmidt says

    Frankly, I was much more bothered by Zoe's attack on other groups like Fine Young Journalists, but I hadn't seen anyone with proof one way or the other about her in a relationship with journalists.

    That would be The Fine Young Capitalists. That dispute was entirely unrelated until GG decided to drag it in as ammunition against Quinn.

  117. says

    @Dave Crisp:

    Technically it is still an ad hominem – you're dismissing the argument based on a (perceived) quality of the arguer rather than addressing its substance – it's just not necessarily a fallacious one.

    I'll cop to that. The alternative – taking assertions by people at face value despite priors suggesting that the person has lied in the past and will lie in the future – seems like a bad heuristic.

  118. says

    @Sami:

    I like how you claim it's not about any individual, but open with the assumption that the claims of infidelity are true.

    I've not seen any serious assertions that they're not, and I've seen (circumstantial) evidence that they are.

    Does the individual in question deny the allegations? My understanding is that she does not.

    Anyway, this is all tangential, because – AS I EXPLAINED OVER THE COURSE OF 4,000 WORDS – I find the infidelity allegations the most boring, trivial part of the entire battle. The only people who seem to want to drag that back into the debate are those who don't want to fight the stage three battle that evolved from the stage one battle. You know, AS I EXPLAINED OVER THE COURSE OF 4,000 WORDS.

  119. says

    @The Man in the Mask:

    With that in mind, I've read the reports of the threats against Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn, et.al., and I find them credible

    It certainly seems plausible. I'd not bet against the proposal that a large percent of them really happened. I'd not even bet against the proposal that many (or most) of them were made by the GamerGate side, inside of being false flag hoaxes by the AntiGamerGate side.

    In the end, though, I don't think the threats are that important. Who amongst us has NOT received threats? I'm almost tempted to put the word threats in scare quotes, because the norm seems to be to elevate a tweet of the form "I hope you're killed" to an actual allegation of threat. When I've received threats from anonymous losers I laugh them off. I find that some people (a minority, I hope) almost relish receiving death threats (or death "threats") because it gives them ammunition in bravery debates.

    Especially given the opinions in evidence in this thread (multiple people have suggested that even the hint of a threat or two against a member of team X automatically disqualifies any argument made by team Y), receiving a threat (or purporting to receive a threat, or receiving a false flag threat, or elevating a nasty comment into a "threat") is a bonus in the status game. Read Schelling.

  120. says

    @Paul Moloney

    This whole blog and other utterances on Twitter are so out of the norm I'm suspecting alien abduction.

    Look to four dev explanations before looking to ten dev explanations.

  121. says

    @Jacob Schmidt:

    That dispute was entirely unrelated until GG decided to drag it in as ammunition against Quinn.

    While not being a GamerGate person, and not knowing what Fine Young Capitalists is, or what side of it any given individual was on, it seems reasonable to me – when examining conflicting claims – to examine the previous history of the principles.

  122. Fthagn says

    @Clark

    In the end, though, I don't think the threats are that important. Who amongst us has NOT received threats? I'm almost tempted to put the word threats in scare quotes, because the norm seems to be to elevate a tweet of the form "I hope you're killed" to an actual allegation of threat. When I've received threats from anonymous losers I laugh them off. I find that some people (a minority, I hope) almost relish receiving death threats (or death "threats") because it gives them ammunition in bravery debates.

    The dynamic of the threats you receive, and the threats received by women, are wholly different. We live in a culture where mothers teach their daughters to take such threats seriously – they are inculcated with the reality of these dangers every night on the news where there's another report of a woman abducted and raped in a dark alley.

    You can argue that men also face threats, because they do. But men are not targeted for assault and degradation for the mere fact of their gender. In most cases society doesn't try and undermine the position of a man by arguing that he's a slut and a whore, or challenge his authority simply because of his sex. These are regular occurrences for women, a fact which you aren't accounting for in your narrative or personal politics.

  123. says

    @Fthagn

    We live in a culture where mothers teach their daughters to take such threats seriously

    Don't mother-shame.

    they are inculcated with the reality of these dangers every night on the news where there's another report of a woman abducted and raped in a dark alley.

    But men are raped more often than women, and men are victims of more violent crime than women are.

    …so I don't follow the argument that women should take threats more seriously than men should.

  124. Fthagn says

    But men are raped more often than women, and men are victims of more violent crime than women are.

    …what?

    From the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network:

    1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).

    17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.

    9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.

    Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women by race:

    All women: 17.6%
    White women: 17.7%
    Black women: 18.8%
    Asian Pacific Islander women: 6.8%
    American Indian/Alaskan women: 34.1%
    Mixed race women: 24.4%
    Men

    About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.

    In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.
    2.78 million men in the U.S. have been victims of sexual assault or rape.

    Let's try something more recent from StatisticBrain, which lists its sources as the US Department of Justice and the United Nations:

    Average number of rape cases reported in the US annually 89,000
    Percent of women who experienced an attempted or completed rape 16 %
    Percent of men who experienced an attempted or completed rape 3 %
    Decline in rape rate since 1993 60 %
    Percent of rapes that are never reported to authorities 60 %
    Percent of college rapes that are never reported to authorities 95 %
    Percent of rapes where both victim and perpetrator had been drinking 47 %

    Oh, and guess who has one of the highest rates of rape in the world? The United States.

    Oh, and by the way, let's talk about violent crime courtesy the US Department of Justice: While you're right, men are much more likely to be murdered, that doesn't diminish the fact that women were the victims of 81.7% of sex-related homicides between 1980 and 2008.

    There's also an argument about context. There is a certain expectation in society that there are factors we cannot control – mass murderers, terrorism, a psychopath on the streets – and we accept these risks. There are also risk factors for violent crime that we know we CAN control – criminal affiliation, drugs, gambling, etc. The average person does not consider themselves as having any of these risk factors absent participation in the behavior.

    For women, you have been dropped into a category of risk by being born. Even if the numbers are higher for men, women must constantly live with the awareness that someone might target them for abduction, rape, and murder. Has your wife/girlfriend/partner ever felt uncomfortable walking down a street because a man was following her too close? Have they ever felt at risk because someone was paying too much attention to them sexually? Have you? I'd bet money the answer to the first two questions are yes, and the answer to the third is no. You are not put in a risk category because of your gender. Women are.

  125. Paul says

    But men are raped more often than women, and men are victims of more violent crime than women are. -@Clark

    Can you post the relevant statistics? This is a fairly controversial claim, and hyperlinks are cheap.

  126. stillnotking says

    Complaints about professional ethics in games journalism are legitimate critiques of a profession. The problem most GGs have with the Zoe Quinn incident is not that Quinn is a terrible human being (although she clearly is), it's that the lax ethical standards of an enthusiast press allow such abuses to happen. There are plenty of other documented cases, going back to at least Jeff Gerstmann.

    On the other hand, turning the conversation to death threats on Twitter, and continually implying that those of us with no professional or personal connection to the threat-makers (besides sharing a hobby) somehow share responsibility, is just about the most reprehensible, hypocritical, and intellectually dishonest tactic I can imagine. Which is probably why it's working so well.

  127. Matt W says

    It certainly seems plausible. I'd not bet against the proposal that a large percent of them really happened. I'd not even bet against the proposal that many (or most) of them were made by the GamerGate side, inside of being false flag hoaxes by the AntiGamerGate side.

    And I'd not bet against the proposal that you don't club baby seals in your spare time. You can't disguise that this is utterly baseless speculation by putting a triple negative in front of it.

    But men are raped more often than women…so I don't follow the argument that women should take threats more seriously than men should.

    Did you not drink your coffee this morning? This is demonstrably false.

    I'll cop to that. The alternative – taking assertions by people at face value despite priors suggesting that the person has lied in the past and will lie in the future – seems like a bad heuristic.

    Given that you have never demonstrated priors suggesting anyone has lied in the past, it seems like this heuristic doesn't apply in any case, unless you're simply trying to cast doubt using pure conjecture.

  128. says

    @Paul:

    Can you post the relevant statistics? This is a fairly controversial claim, and hyperlinks are cheap.

    Sure.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

    More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons.
    In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures.
    That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.

  129. says

    @Matt W:

    But men are raped more often than women

    Did you not drink your coffee this morning? This is demonstrably false.

    OK, please demonstrate it.

  130. Matt W says

    @stillnotlooking

    Funny you bring up Jeff Gerstmann. Here are Gerstmann's own words on Gamergate:

    I'm saddened to see the topic that has driven much of my career become so wholly co-opted for hate. Ultimately, that's a side note to the main event, of course. Having people toss all discussion about ethics in games journalism under a bus to hide politicized harassment campaigns is sad for me, but I'll be fine. Games? Game developers? That's what's actually at stake. I'm not sure what the actual end goal of GamerGate seems to be, but it seems to be somewhere between "destroy the careers of anyone who would make a game that falls outside of a certain-yet-unspecified scope and/or topic" and "let's burn it all down because it's fun to see how much trouble we can stir up."

  131. stillnotking says

    @ Matt W: I wasn't implying that Gerstmann is "on my side" — I really don't care about the tribal dispute aspect of this, except insofar as I'm forced to when I'm accused of misogyny etc. I was just pointing out that what happened to him is additional evidence of a pattern of corruption.

  132. Matt W says

    OK, yes, if you include prison rapes, more men are raped, and I'm grateful that you're calling attention to this glaring and hideous problem with our justice system. I'm not sure though what that has to do with your original assertion: "I don't follow the argument that women should take threats more seriously than men should." It seems pretty clear that women, in general, should take rape threats more seriously than men who aren't in prison, which is what the plain meaning of your statement suggests.

  133. Fthagn says

    @Clark

    Your article is talking about PRISONS. Also, that article is referencing statistics on sexual assault as opposed to rape. As I'm sure Ken would tell you, those are different animals.

    See my previous post for actual statistics on rapes in the United States.

  134. Chris says

    Well then allow me to introduce you to an obscure leftist you've probably never heard of before.

    Just for clarity, Hillary Clinton is in no way a lefty… simply slightly less right-leaning than the Repubs. Her, and the rest of the Dems, still believe much of the neo-liberal economic stuff that their opposites do.

  135. says

    @Fthagn

    Your article is talking about PRISONS.

    The article referenced the total number of rapes, including both prison rape and non-prison rape.

  136. mud man says

    All very well but I can't imagine how you can claim the blue team is winning. It seems to me that the "reds" (the New Reds, not the old commies) have successfully promoted their propertarian notions of "cash" as "value" and are on their way to agglomerating the whole thing by purchase. Soon there will be a new Augustus, who ended up personally owning that new thing, the Roman Empire. It may have been historically true that the blues have been noisier but I don't think that's even true lately, and arguably the federalization of social justice (such as Steven Pinker lauds) is red entryistics at very successful work defeating localist libertarianism, which is the only true kind.

  137. Mika says

    @Clark:
    "@Mika:

    you actually say "Hitler was the leader of Team Blue back then"

    uh…what? Can you show me where that quoted text that I'm "actually saying" appears?

    I certainly mentioned Otto von Bismarck."

    Well, sure, you say:
    "It's not crazy to note that Blue Team has used policies that arrest, deport, and kill "thought leaders" from Red Team on occasion (in Ireland, in France, in Mexico, in Germany, in Russia, and so forth) and to note that the ascendant Bright majority today is happy to talk about imprisoning or killing people who disagree with their conclusions on, say, global warming."

    And "Germany" links to the prosecution of christians in the third reich. So you say in effect "Blue Team has used policies that arrest, deport and kill "thought leaders" from Red Team on occasion, such as when the Nazi (=Blue Team) lead by Hilter (their leader) killed christians (=Red Team) during their reign in Germany."
    So, I think it is correct to conclude that you "actually say that Hitler was the leader of Team Blue back then". Maybe you didn't mean to say that, then please explain what you wanted to express instead, because I understood it like this?

    I did not talk about your part on Bismarck at all. Although that one is equally far-fetched. You know that Bismarck was the one who outlawed social democrats (as much Team Blue as you get, at least today in Germany)? World's complicated.

    Cheers,

    Mika

  138. Al says

    The only people who seem to want to drag that back into the debate are those who don't want to fight the stage three battle that evolved from the stage one battle.

    Or, maybe it's just that your argument falls apart at stage one. If you were honest:

    Stage 1: An angry ex shops his now widely discredited story around until he finds a group of people who’ll pick up on it. These people just happen to be the same that have been harassing Anita Sarkeesian for over a year at this point because of her tropes vs women videos. Thus, the Quinnspiracy is born. (And goes on for much, much longer than a millisecond.)

    Stage 2: Adam Baldwin picks up on it, rebrands it gamegate and starts framing the whole thing as a left vs right issue using the cover of “ethical game journalism.”

    Stage 3: Social conservatives, many of whom were critical of video games up to this point, hop on the bandwagon. I’ll leave why as an exercise for the reader.

    Who amongst us has NOT received threats?

    I have never received a death threat that included my real name, address and the names of my family members. I’d bet real money you haven’t either. Multiple women have received these kinds of threats multiple times from gators.

    multiple people have suggested that even the hint of a threat or two against a member of team X automatically disqualifies any argument made by team Y

    Just to be clear, yes I think that issuing multiple death threats that are very specific in times and places against someone because they’re producing feminist critiques of tropes used in video games pretty much disqualifies them from being taken seriously. The same also goes for issuing death threats with the same kind of specificity against someone who is critical of the group issuing death threats.

  139. Fthagn says

    @Clark

    From the article:

    In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures.

    That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.

    This article deliberately misrepresents data in order to sensationalize. Rape =/= sexual assault. To grossly oversimplify, rape involves penetration, sexual assault involves any kind of sexualized violence (including rape, sexual torture, forced kissing and groping).

    Some ACTUAL figures on sexual assault in the US from the CDC (as opposed to a libelous tabloid):

    In a nationally representative survey of adults:

    • Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men
    (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in
    their lives.

    • Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and
    5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence
    other than rape, such as being made to penetrate
    someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted
    sexual contact, or non-contact unwanted sexual
    experiences, in the 12 months prior to the survey.

    • 4.8% of men reported they were made to penetrate
    someone else atsome time in their lives.

    • 13% of women and 6% of men reported they
    experienced sexual coercion at some time in their
    lives.

  140. Paul Moloney says

    But men are raped more often than women, and men are victims of more violent crime than women are.

    IN PRISON.

    P.

  141. b says

    @Clark "What sort of things suggest to you that it might be [a prank]?"

    Generally, you cover your bases better: your writing is better organized, more concise, less tangent-twitchy, and a little mordant rather than strident. This piece is somewhat more indulgent and shows some of the "true believer's" habit of stapling all one's pet peeves onto the argument—the drive-by piling on of irrelevant flags, bells, and whistles. You don't convince here: jotting this off a little too quickly shows. You veer into or just barely skirt a proper full-on rant, but still leave proper exposition and explanation behind—as you leave readers behind, unconvinced or just baffled.

    So, in brief, I saw fewer signs of discipline here, in thought or word. Normally, even if I'm skeptical, you put on a good show. I credit you with that discipline and with a capacity for subtlety, leading me in this case to invert Hanlon's razor, as it were.

  142. Max says

    So, to sum up what Clark is admitting:

    All the evidence points to the fact that there was no breach of journalistic ethics (Zoe Quinn's sex life seems to have had very little to do with her reviews, and in particular the journalist she did have a relationship with never wrote about her game.)

    All the evidence points the fact the death threats made by people claiming to be GG supporters were real and were scary and in volume.

    GG supporters are just clutching at an obviously misjudged 'ethics' debate in a way that is a cover for their other agendas – anti-feminist, anti-semitic, anti-'cultural marxist' – but still want everyone to pretend their discredited talking points have any validity.

    BUT Clark supports the Gamer Gaters because he is against the people they are fighting? Is prepared to pretend they are right because their being shown to be wrong would help the pinkoes he hates so much? Kudos on the honesty.

    Check out the 8chan boards where the GamerGaters plan their campaign and bewail their losses. They constantly cheer each other on by promising they will rally and defeat their Feminist/SJW foes and then talk about what they will do to the losers, to those who 'betrayed them', and even those who just stood on the sidelines. It isn't pretty, even though they are talking metaphorically.

    They know their enemies clearly (and they would agree with you): the 'cultural marxists', the '3rd wave feminists' and the thoroughly evil LW1 and 2 (Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn can only be named in code). They take it for granted that all the threats were issued as false flag operations to discredit the GGers, then issue bloodcurdling promises to deny anyone on the SJW side a living for the rest of time.

    The whole GGer agenda is that feminists and Social Justice Warriors should not be allowed to comment on games ever again in any part of journalism or even popular blogs. They don't just disagree with our views, they don't want them heard by anyone.

    And Popehat, that staunch defender of censorship, and advocate of speech being the best counter to speech, is on their side. Or is it just Clark, because helping them hurts the 'blues'.

    (And this red/blue thing confuses me cos the Reds are the left in the UK and a True Blue is a conservative.)

  143. Castaigne says

    It is interesting, however ridiculous and distasteful Clark's weaseling, to find that this is the official Popehat opinion on GamerGate. Will Mr White now be raising the Popehat signal to defend GamerGaters against the evil FemSlutBeasts and their criticisms?

  144. b says

    @Clark

    I should have added: the greater context as I described made the shibboleths or near shibboleths, like the mention of Alinsky—misspelled!—seem more like hints and embellishments than serious inclusions. Of course, we can well disagree on whether some of these are more substance or more stink.

  145. says

    And Popehat, that staunch defender of censorship, and advocate of speech being the best counter to speech, is on their side. Or is it just Clark, because helping them hurts the 'blues'.

    It is interesting, however ridiculous and distasteful Clark's weaseling, to find that this is the official Popehat opinion on GamerGate.

    There is no popehat position on gamersgate. There is Clark's position on gamersgate. It's incredibly unusual for "popehat" to take a stance on anything. We're a collection of individuals. It's not clear to me why either of you was confused on this matter.

  146. says

    @Castaign:

    this is the official Popehat opinion on GamerGate.

    Oh, grow up. There is no "official Popehat opinion" on anything, let alone GamerGate. You can't seriously be so juvenile as to think that by asserting that there is you're going to either force Ken, Patrick, et al to agree with me, or to denounce me, can you?

  147. says

    @Max:

    So, to sum up what Clark is admitting:

    I love your (attempt) at framing here: that you're prosecutorial acumen has forced me to "admit" something, with the clear connotation that the things that I'm "admitting" are crimes, or sins, or backtracking, or something. I admit nothing because I have nothing to admit.

    All the evidence points to the fact that there was no breach of journalistic ethics…

    I have no idea, because I haven't investigated the issue, because I don't care. The interesting aspect of GamerGate is not stage 2.

    All the evidence points the fact the death threats

    I have no idea, because I haven't investigated the issue, because I don't care. The interesting aspect of GamerGate is not stage 1 or stage 2.

    GG supporters are just clutching at an obviously misjudged 'ethics' debate in a way that is a cover for their other agendas – anti-feminist, anti-semitic, anti-'cultural marxist'

    I reject this characterization entirely, and don't remotely agree with it or "admit" it.

    BUT Clark supports the Gamer Gaters

    I do? Can you point out where I said that, or even implied it?

    And Popehat, that staunch defender of censorship, and advocate of speech being the best counter to speech, is on their side. Or is it just Clark, because helping them hurts the 'blues'.

    Ugh. Never mind the request for evidence above; I don't have any intention of interacting with you further.

  148. says

    @grandy:

    We're a collection of individuals. It's not clear to me why either of you was confused on this matter.

    My take, Grandy? They're angling for a Ken denunciation.

  149. Ken in NJ says

    In the end, though, I don't think the threats are that important.

    Really?

    Tell me, how many threats have you received in he past month that include you real name, your address, a picture of your house, the name of your SO?

    How many threats have you received threatening to drop your dox on a forum full of dozens, or hundreds of rage-filled howler monkeys who have been posting messages for months about what a toxic, harmful piece of human excrement you are and how they'd love to rape you death or shove a K-Bar up your ass?

    How many times have you gotten a phone call in your home from a stranger who threatens to rape your wife and says "I'll be there tonight"

    How many times have you gotten a phone call at work from a stranger threatening to burn down your house? Or an email sent to your boss with documents purporting to be from your computer, and enough personal information included to cloud the issue of whether or not it's a hoax?

    I'm going to go ahead and guess zero times.

    The women involved in this current kerfluffle have been getting tens of thousands of harassing and threatening emails, blog comments, youTube comments, and phone calls. A non-stop stream of adolescent rage and vitriol for months
    . So many threats that numerous women have been forced out of their homes, or have decided to quit the gaming industry entirely, as a direct result of those threats. Threats so serious that the fucking FBI is investigating. Threats so wretched that the story has now made the front page of the New York Times.

    But yeah, we know, that's just another Tuesday afternoon for Clark, no big deal, happens to all of us.

  150. Castaigne says

    @Grandy:

    There is no popehat position on gamersgate. There is Clark's position on gamersgate. It's incredibly unusual for "popehat" to take a stance on anything. We're a collection of individuals. It's not clear to me why either of you was confused on this matter.

    Popehat is, and I quote, A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure. A group complaint. Clark is part of Popehat. Are you saying that he's gone rogue, that this isn't a Popehat post, that he isn't part of the collective of authors here? I need actual evidence to that effect, thanks.

    =====

    @Clark:

    There is no "official Popehat opinion" on anything, let alone GamerGate.

    Popehat is a group blog. You posted this under the Popehat banner; is this not a Popehat opinion, just like the posts of Patrick, Ken White, and others? You are somehow exempt? I find this difficult to believe, especially considering the defense of other posts of yours by the collective Popehat bosses.

    You can't seriously be so juvenile as to think that by asserting that there is you're going to either force Ken, Patrick, et al to agree with me, or to denounce me, can you?

    I'm not going to force anything. They allowed you to post this; since they did not object, they must by default approve. A silence or failure to disapprove indicates approval by default. Thus, there is nothing to force; the opinion is already known.

    And really, it's not like it wasn't known that Popehat is on the side of the Gamergaters. The official Popehat tweets show unstinting support.

    My take, Grandy? They're angling for a Ken denunciation.

    There will be NO Ken White denunciation. The Popehat tweets show him FIRMLY on your side.

  151. says

    @Castaigne

    Popehat is, and I quote, A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure. A group complaint. Clark is part of Popehat. Are you saying that he's gone rogue, that this isn't a Popehat post, that he isn't part of the collective of authors here? I need actual evidence to that effect, thanks.

    Yes, the tag line dos in fact say "group complaint". In no way, shape, or form does that suggest that any position held by a single member of Popehat is held by every member of Popehat. Amazingly, 95% of the people who stop by here understand this. Which puts you in an unfortunate, though not permanent, category. Please understand something: you cannot "win" this argument. There are a number of reasons for this but they hardly matter and it's unlikely I could convince you of them and I lack the time to try. The likely outcome of you going down this road you being sent away where I forget about you and move on with my life, or I decide you are Popehat's new resident useful idiot. Let me assure you the former is preferable.

    Popehat is not a collective entity. It is a collection of entities.

    They allowed you to post this; since they did not object, they must by default approve.

    No, precious, this is not so.

    There will be NO Ken White denunciation. The Popehat tweets show him FIRMLY on your side.

    Ken is no the primary user of the Twitter account. Point of fact, Ken rarely uses the twitter account. He may be using it here, I have not checked. It's unlikely Ken is doing the tweeting.

    I have to go do actual things in the real world. When I return to this thread in the evening, I do not want to be disappointed by anyone. I doubt I will be anything but disappointed by you, but I'm going to keep an open mind.

  152. Kevin says

    @Castaigne

    There will be NO Ken White denunciation. The Popehat tweets show him FIRMLY on your side.

    Pretty sure that was Patrick actually.

    They allowed you to post this; since they did not object, they must by default approve.

    Well, either that, or maybe they're just not mouth-breathing authoritarian wannabe censors like you, and are capable of entertaining opinions they disagree with?

  153. Castaigne says

    @Ken in NJ:

    But yeah, we know, that's just another Tuesday afternoon for Clark, no big deal, happens to all of us

    Well, hey, one of the people on that list is a sociopathic liar! Never mind that there's no proof, no name offered, and a bunch of evasion by Clark. And the threats? No big deal and who trusts the authorities investigating them anyway? And no way is this official Popehat!…despite being posted on the official Popehat blog, supported by official Popehat tweets, by an official Popehat author.

    Nah, it's just the evil Blues…which is more hack neoreactionary bullcrap, Mencius Moldbug style. I seriously wonder if Clark expects to be one of the new TechGod Nobility when the neoreactionaries take over. I mean, he fits all of the criteria:
    – a "trad" Catholic, almost sedevacantist in nature
    – disillusionment/disbelief in any democratic or structure dating from the Enlightenment
    – a firm belief in the "natural order of things", especially evinced by his "secular" anti-gay marriage theory
    – firm alliance (and admiration) of prominent neoreactionary "philosophers", like the aforementioned Moldbug and Vox Day
    – Austrian economics adherence, as espoused by his anarchocapitalist stance
    – normative arguments based on evolutionary psychology
    – hostility to feminism, multiculturalism, and progressivism in all its forms, especially democracy and equality

    One common feature of the movement is a long-winded — ridiculously long-winded — and oblique prose style, eager to show off its mastery of historical trivia. That fits Clark to a 'T'. He exemplifies it.

    Clark should really just admit it and be done with it.

  154. Max says

    That is fine. Not Popehat. Clark. Just establishing before the 8chan horde get here.

    And I missed the point of this article entirely then.

    I thought:
    'I don't play video games, and I don't care about video game
    journalism. But I know a culture war when I see one, and I've chosen
    my side.'
    Meant that you had chosen a side in the debate, and that was the GamerGaters? I apologise unreservedly for my lack of reading comprehension. I'll have a little rest and go back and read the article again.

    I really wasn't trying to get any other contributor to this blog to disagree with you over this. They would all always back your corner, as they have proved time and time again here. And that was a little rhetorical and speechifying and accusatory, so I apologise for that as well.

    However, I do hold to my point, the Gaters don't just disagree with the 'Feminist/SJW/Cultural Marxists', they want them to stop writing articles about games. More than that, if lefties have jobs in games journalism and games they want them to be lost, and on 8chan they often state how happy they will be on that day. This is the 'conservative' viewpoint (although the 8chan lot often reassure each other they are the real radicals).

    A few 'progressives' have done unacceptable things (threats to never employ gamers again, threats to harm aspiring journalist's careers in the GG camp, some insults that go beyond exasperation, calls to home addresses to insult, death threats to a conservative journalist that said death threats shouldn't be taken seriously). Less than the other side.

    Your 'red versus blue' has relevance to the constant war fought in Halo multiplayer (perhaps why you made it). Both sides fighting endlessly for pointless reasons. But this is a Geek civil war, and, like all civil wars, bloody. And geeks like me are almost as bad as the GGrs in taking it to any forum it raises its head. The GGrs talk about 'red and blue' pills, and they try to get people to swallow their pill on forums. (Their metaphor but I can't remember the colour of their pill).

    If 8chan think you are 'on their side' you will become a hero to them of the level of Milo Yiannopoulos. They have few allies and treasure all of them with a fanatical devotion. You quoted Firefly at the end of your piece. Joss Wheden is a hero of theirs as well, and came out against them. He is not alone, and they are feeling very isolated.

    Best outcome, they realise that we are one nation. It looks like GamerGate is losing, but that they will fight to the bitter end. Even after they lose they will be convinced they will rise again, and bitterly assure everyone it was never about misogyny and driving the left out of games, but their rights.

    If they did win though, it would be a world where the games press would not be allowed to consider whether a game was sexist, in fact would not be allowed to comment on anything but games mechanics, and any journalist who had commented on 'Social Issues' would be out of a job. They are not fighting for survival but victory.

    When the progressives win, many would hope that we can heal the rift with these (mainly young) geeks and find a way to allay their concerns. There will always should be games like CoD with a mainly Right Wing agenda. And that is OK, as long as 'we' get to point it out and to praise games that are trying to do something different and support indie developers who are pushing a different way. In the end, it should be left to the market, and as the GGers point out, they are a large segment of it and will always be catered for.

    Not only will the right-wing geeks stay so (and justly – diversity is good), but many otherwise liberal geeks will have been driven into the arms of the likes of Milo Y and other conservative band-wagon-jumpers looking for easy converts. 'We' have to be fair in order to restore the previous balance.

    In the meantime, the virtual shooting war in the arid plains of Twitter and the rocky defiles of blog forums will continue among your reds and blues. Waypoints and flags will be fought for and captured. This blog, I'm afraid, is now a flag.

  155. Grifter says

    The whole GamerGate thing has become somewhat nonsensical to me. Maybe I'm just not looking at it in depth, though that's because there are certain times I look at particular rabbitholes and say "Oooooohhhh no, that one's bottomless with spikes on the sides".

    I hear a lot of vague stuff about what it's about–and Clark draws this vague stuff to parallels with centuries of cultural shifts that, even if it's an oversimplification, is at least an INTERESTING oversimplification with arguable benefits (in the sense that I think there are benefits, but if it's too oversimplified for someone's tastes it seems hard to argue).

    But…like…seriously, what specifically is it about now? What does "GamerGate" represent?

    The reporting thing seems pretty well debunked–what little coverage of the game there was was positive, sure, but even if it was a breach of ethics somehow (traced through several people to get there), it was of the minor sort that appears, at least to me, like if your cousin is a crime reporter for the paper and the food critic says your restaurant "has some dishes that were okay"; I don't see anything HUGE to send up a hue and cry about.

    So if the journalism thing isn't "really" an issue (and Clark skips right over that as uninteresting and not what it's about), then what, specifically, IS it about? The much-criticized "GG" people seem to be the moving party on this, right? They're the ones with the title….

    There was a kerfluffle a few years ago in a different subculture that was about allegedly inappropriate behavior, that was often couched in similar simplistic terms. Not going down that rabbithole, either.

    But it didn't seem to stray as far from the "point", as it were, as GG has, where the behavior at issue, and similar alleged behaviors directly relevant to the issue were the main focus, with the broader themes of demonizing your opponent still also there, but… there were actual points. Are there actual points from one side or the other that aren't just broad, generalized complaints on differing philosophies?

    Also: Lol, quite literally. I am amused at the "I'll argue that if the other popehat authors don't speak out they must therefore agree and I think I can backhandedly badger them into agreeing with ME!" Like mommy and daddy, they may disagree, but if you think that YOU can pressure them into agreeing with you, they're going to just send you to your room without supper. Like it says on the commenting policy, with just a slight edit (which I'd link to but I fear moderation like some people fear the number 13): "This is a group blog. Different authors have different perspectives. But when it comes to YOU, we have one perspective. We're like your mom and dad. If you're an orphan, we're like the Communist Party. We adhere to the Party line. Complaining to dad about mom's high-handed, arbitrary decision … will only get you sent to the bushes, to cut a switch."

  156. says

    @Grifter:

    But…like…seriously, what specifically is it about now? What does "GamerGate" represent?

    I understand entirely your question, and your frustration. It's a maddeningly difficult question to answer, and – in the end – I think there is no answer other than the one I gave. It is two vast mobs with inchoate opinions, smashing into each other like so much Tuetoberg Forest. Each hates the other for deep reasons, and each individual knows why this particular fight is happening here, today…but none of them agree w each other.

    To try to dig into what the talking points are is wrong. It's to be lost in a distraction. This isn't about platform planks or demands. It's about tribal hatred.

  157. Ken in NJ says

    I'm almost tempted to put the word threats in scare quotes, because the norm seems to be to elevate a tweet of the form "I hope you're killed" to an actual allegation of threat.

    — "Guess what bitch? I know where you live. You and Frank live at [real address redacted]
    — "I'm going to rape your filthy ass until you bleed, then choke you to death with your husband's tiny penis"
    — "Your mutilated corpse will be on the front page of Jezebel tomorrow and there isn't jack shit you can do about it"
    — "If you have any kids, they're going to die, too"
    — "I hope you enjoy your last moments on this earth"

    –"I'm going to come to your apartment at [real address redacted] and rape you to death. After I'm done I'll ram a tire iron up your cunt"
    –" I'm going to kill your parents too. [real address redacted] I've seen their house

    — “I’m gonna impregnate you with triplets and make you have a very late term abortion. Strict mental abuse. Hahaha.”

    "I was shown a sample of the forum posts by EA security and it included graphic threats to kill my children on their way out of school to show them that they should have been aborted at birth rather than have to have me as a mother."

    –"A bomb will be detonated at the Game Developers Choice award ceremony tonight unless Anita Sarkeesian’s Ambassador Award is revoked. We estimate the bomb will kill at least a dozen people and injure dozens more. It would be in your best interest to accept our simple request. This is not a joke. You have been warned.”

    –"I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols and a collection of pipe bombs. This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history… You have 24 hours to cancel Sarkeesian's talk. You might be foolish enough to just beef up security at the event, but that won't save you. Even if they're able to stop me, there are plenty of feminists on campus who won't be able to defend themselves. One way or another, I'm going to make sure they die."
    –"“I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America.”

    I mean, who would take something like that seriously? It is to laugh at! I mean, it's not like anyone saying those kinds of things has ever gone on a killing spree, you know? Who hasn't received threats like those, amirite? I can hardly believe those silly women overreacting and getting all scared of nonsense like that? Just man up, ladies!

  158. Grifter says

    @Clark:

    Thanks, and I love the word "inchoate".

    And you're probably right, but sometimes I do want to know the specific planks that make up the good ship "S.S. Our Enemies Are Evil!" or, to use your analogy from earlier, what hills they ARE fighting over–because sometimes they actually are important hills. More often than not, sure, they're hamburger hills, and maybe I'm being overly optimistic to think that one or two might be a hill 60 (that one actually was important, right? My people have no tradition of military history) that makes at least some of the battle meaningful.

  159. sinij says

    While I support gender equality, I find SJW tactics despicable and on par with the worst of MRA. I am sure I will get death threats for speaking the truth.

  160. sinij says

    While I support gender equality, I find SJW tactics despicable and on par with the worst of MRA. I am sure I will get death threats for speaking the truth.

    Die! Die! Die!

    Wait, too obvious?

  161. stillnotking says

    If they did win though, it would be a world where the games press would not be allowed to consider whether a game was sexist, in fact would not be allowed to comment on anything but games mechanics, and any journalist who had commented on 'Social Issues' would be out of a job. They are not fighting for survival but victory.

    @Max: I can't speak for anyone else, but as a GG myself, I have no problem with games journalists writing about social issues. I probably won't read them, because I consider sociological analysis of video games to be an issue of marginal, academic interest at best (even when the "analysis" isn't as grasping and amateurish as most such articles are), but if they have an audience, hey, it's a free country.

    Failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest or personal/professional relationships with the subjects of their articles is another matter. It's interesting to me that so many games journalism outlets refuse even to pay lip service to the minimal ethical standards of their profession. Any theories on why that is?

  162. Castaigne says

    @Kevin:

    Pretty sure that was Patrick actually.

    Does it matter? It's the official Popehat tweet. Popehat says it, Popehat endorses it. *shrugs* Does it matter which corporate officer does the blatherings when they are operating under color of the group? No, of course not. It does not matter whether the CEO of IBM says it or the VP of Marketing; it is IBM that has said it.

    Well, either that, or maybe they're just not mouth-breathing authoritarian wannabe censors like you, and are capable of entertaining opinions they disagree with?

    1) I don't want this post censored at all. I want it to remain up. Forever. I want it to stand as testament to Clark's opinions.

    2) I'm more interested in seeing Clark name the person on the list he believes is a sociopathic liar. Zoe Quinn? Anita Sarkeesian? Whom? Blunt honesty – which is the best free speech – would serve him well on this.

    =====

    @Grandy:

    Yes, the tag line dos in fact say "group complaint". In no way, shape, or form does that suggest that any position held by a single member of Popehat is held by every member of Popehat.

    So you say. I should point out that it's like saying that employees of IBM don't speak for IBM, or members of the Obama administration don't speak for the Obama administration, but whatever you maintain is your business. A lot of people maintain a lot of things, some of which are so and some of which are not so.

    Please understand something: you cannot "win" this argument.

    Good thing I'm not trying to argue it then! I'm simply stating it; you can…confirm, deny, whatever. It does not matter to me.

    Popehat is not a collective entity. It is a collection of entities.

    Yes, I understand – a semantic difference that has the same practical outcome.

    No, precious, this is not so.

    *shrugs* Your assertion is noted.

    Ken is no the primary user of the Twitter account. Point of fact, Ken rarely uses the twitter account. He may be using it here, I have not checked. It's unlikely Ken is doing the tweeting.

    It's the official Popehat tweet; does it matter who uses it? Popehat tweet says what Popehat wants to say. If it doesn't, that should probably be specified who is saying it so others can distance – or not – themselves from it, if they so wish.

    When I return to this thread in the evening, I do not want to be disappointed by anyone. I doubt I will be anything but disappointed by you, but I'm going to keep an open mind.

    May I ask what you would be 'disappointed' in? Commenters exercising free speech of their opinions in the manner in which Popehat stands for? Are you insulted by my opinions on Popehat or Clark or some manner? Is my stance on GamerGate bothersome to you?

    I should note that I have asked for nothing to be censored or denounced, nor will I do so. I expect Clark to ignore certain questions by me that discomfit him or providing what I would call "weasley" answers to get around them – it's not the first time he's done it nor will it be the last. I personally attribute his unwillingness to answer to simple cowardice; it's better than the thought that he just simply refuses to take a stand on something so he can later say he never believed that at all.

    Personally, I'd rather be absolutely wrong than waffling and indecisive. Maybe that's just me.

  163. sinij says

    My take, Grandy? They're angling for a Ken denunciation.

    Sadly, they will likely get it. Ken's real name is on the door, and once his reputation and practice gets attacked it would be logical and understandable course of action for him to distance himself from this mess.

    We talked before about internet lynch mobs, disproportional consequences to speech acts and resulting chilling effects, and necessity of anonymity. This will be just another example of the above.

  164. Grifter says

    @stillnotking:

    I would think it was because they've been in the pocket of the industry for so long? (for example, the Kane and Lynch 2 review kerfluffle). I don't think that aspect has changed (though maybe I'm pessimistic, my knowledge of game journalism is surface at best…basically I get game informer and read at least 3 articles maybe), so it doesn't surprise me if other aspects don't seem as big a deal, either.

    Though I still really don't see where there would need to be a conflict-of-interest disclosure in this case even if games journalism was real.

  165. Max says

    @stillnotking I haven't seen any evidence that games journalism is any worse than any other branches of journalism. In fact, if the current minor indiscretions are all an army of angry, obsessed, data-loving geeks* can dig up, I suspect that things are actually better in games journalism. One of the 'charges' of GG is that a writer who did a piece for the Guardian left out her support for a subject on Patreon. In fact, she had originally mentioned it but this mainstream journalism outlet judged it irrelevant and the editors cut that bit out.
    (*I am an out and proud geek myself – and gamer)
    That isn't to say there isn't a conversation to be had about how big companies influence reviews, but GG is about getting rid of SJWs and feminists not Big Game.

  166. Grifter says

    @Castaigne:

    Have you considered that his failure to answer to your satisfaction may be:

    because your satisfaction level is unrealistic?
    and/or
    because he doesn't "owe" it to you to reply, and you're kind of a dick about it? I point specifically to attributing to him cowardice, though there's also rather tone issues, too.

    I disagree with Clark on a great many things, although we seem to agree on the value of the word "inchoate". But if I do want a clarification or explanation, I usually find it beneficial not to insult the person I'm asking for it from…

  167. sinij says

    @Castaigne

    I don't want this post censored at all.

    No, what you want is for Clark's speech to be chilled, and for him to self-censor in the future.

  168. stillnotking says

    @Max: Other branches of journalism require conflict-of-interest disclosure, and games journalism does not. If conflicts of interest are really so rare, why not adopt the same standards as everyone else? All Kotaku and Giantbomb have to do is say "We support and adopt the RTDNA guidelines for avoiding conflict of interest."

    The charitable explanation is that they don't want to look like they're knuckling under to pressure. The less charitable explanation is that conflicts of interest are actually so endemic that they would quickly be forced to fire most of their staff. I find that being charitable in situations like this is generally the same as being naive.

  169. Guesting says

    Poor Clark…
    I usually never, ever agree with him (specially his "burn everything to the ground" regarding the government) but I still value his opinion. One can learn from different points of view from time to time.

    Too bad he chose to be honest and not take a stand against GG. He didn't even joined GG but merely by staying neutral and not accusing GG of being horrible humans, the "progressives" have come down on him.

    Only way to win the game is not to play…. but I do admire his courage for posting a neutral opinion on it.

    Also, I wouldn't bother with Castaigne. From the looks of it, he/she just wants to frame the popehat authors or make Ken come out and shun Clark.

    Also note that he is also using the same tactic GG has been using and anti-GG has claimed is harrasment/taking away their rights to speech. I guess is only OK when they do it.

  170. Jenny says

    No, what you want is for Clark's speech to be chilled, and for him to self-censor in the future.

    That's my read.

    As much as I find the worst partisans of the GG side execrable, I'd rather have to put up with them than support any more scalp-counting SJW witchhunts.

    If someone's launching legit death threats, find and prosecute those individuals.
    But the self-satisfied moral preening is just tiresome.

  171. Grifter says

    @stillnotking:

    Do you really think the main problem and impediment to conflict of interest standards is on the level of interpersonal relations causing conflict of interest as opposed to upper management decisions to stay in bed with publishers?

  172. Castaigne says

    @Grifter:

    because your satisfaction level is unrealistic?

    I hardly think a question of "Which one?" to "One of the names on this list is a sociopathic liar." is unrealistic. YMMV, of course.

    because he doesn't "owe" it to you to reply

    No, he doesn't owe a response to me or anyone. Likewise, he is not owed the retraction of the question.

    and you're kind of a dick about it? I point specifically to attributing to him cowardice, though there's also rather tone issues, too.

    I will quote: "Tone arguments are an ad hominem attack, used as a derailment, silencing tactic or by a concern troll. The tone argument in practice is almost always dishonest. It is generally used by a tone troll against opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person."

    So, that's why I don't care about tone.

    And really, saying it's due to cowardice? Is actually a very kind assumption as to his reasoning. Because if it's not that, it's malice; the assumption that Clark is deliberately avoiding and weaseling due to a malicious agenda that he has.

    I dunno; you might think that The Four White Feathers is a worse assumption than being a Black Hat. My assumption of cowardice on his part at least assumes Clark is acting in good faith.

    =====

    @sinijj:

    No, what you want is for Clark's speech to be chilled, and for him to self-censor in the future.

    Incorrect! I do not want Clark's speech to be chilled at all. I do not want him to self-censor at all. I want his opinions to be widely known and clearly stated, because it reveals what type of person he is, be that good, bad, or ugly. Just like Democratic Underground or Free Republic or Where Liberty Dwells or Wonkette or any other site.

  173. stillnotking says

    @Grifter: I absolutely think it's both. I think management of gaming sites has a toxic dependence on ad revenue from publishers, and I think individual journalists have overly-cozy relationships with the developers whose games they cover. The interests of those two groups in ignoring professional ethics standards nicely coincide.

  174. Castaigne says

    @Jenny:

    As much as I find the worst partisans of the GG side execrable, I'd rather have to put up with them than support any more scalp-counting SJW witchhunts.

    I have no interest in GG partisans' speech being chilled or shut up. In fact, I want them to shout from the rooftops and I will oppose any attempt to let them do otherwise.

    If someone's launching legit death threats, find and prosecute those individuals.

    No, I disagree with this entirely. I oppose it. I want the death threat makers to keep talking.

  175. Grifter says

    @Castaigne:

    Now you're just being ridiculous. "I can insult someone as much as I want, and if they don't reply to my satisfaction, I can say it's either cowardice or malice on their part" is an absurdly dishonest argument. To pretend that being a dick has no impact on a discussion is just foolishness.

    Incidentally, my point was not that you SHOULDN'T be a dick, per se, it was that you should consider whether it's a factor in you not getting a response that you like when you're a dick. I'm not tone trolling, nor am I engaging in an ad hominem fallacy. I'm asking whether you've considered that your being a dick is why your question may not have been answered to your satisfaction.

    It's worth noting that he DID respond and explain why that's not a question he wants to answer. Now, you can disagree with that, but pretending he's not answered at all is disingenuous–and it's part of why you're being a dick. "He hasn't answered!" (when he has answered, just not in a way you'd like) "He's either a coward or has a malicious agenda!" (Explicitly ignoring alternatives such as that it might just be because you're being a dick, and creating a dishonestly false dichotomy).

    (edited a couple times for typos)

  176. Different Max says

    The problem isn't that SJWs write SJW articles. Nobody is seriously trying to shut down Upworthy for existing and having a large reader base. The problem is that SJWs take over existing institutions, and they try to destroy any institutions they can't take over.
    "A few 'progressives' have done unacceptable things […] less than the other side." – both sides are generally doing everything in their power, whether it's ethical or not. Leigh Alexander has the institutional power to get someone fired, but she can't cut anyone up. Phil Fish might angrily retweet someone's address, but he can't threaten to rape anyone and expect a Kotaku article pledging full support… etc.
    The fact that unethical GamerGaters resort to random, anonymous acts of virtual terrorism is a sign that they don't have power, while unethical progressives do have power.
    But ultimately, it's just a battle of two activist groups willing to fling whatever shit they can. The ethical, popular GamerGaters don't want to call it like it is. I'm not optimistic.

  177. says

    @Guesting:

    e/she just wants to frame the popehat authors or make Ken come out and shun Clark….Also note that he is also using the same tactic GG has been using

    This is an excellent point, Guesting. Thanks.

    Yes, part of what I disdain about the Pink SJW mafia is the salami slice shaming tactic: first they bombard an issue from all sides the identify and isolate their enemies. Then they slice off all the bystanders, one at a time, and make them agree that the enemies are bad and the good team is good. The longer this goes on the harder it is (for some) to resist. It's a very clever and effective technique.

  178. says

    @Different Max:

    The fact that unethical GamerGaters resort to random, anonymous acts of virtual terrorism is a sign that they don't have power, while unethical progressives do have power.

    Pure Moldbuggian wisdom.

  179. Max says

    @stillnotking do I really have to dig out Kotaku's statement on this? I'm tired, it is easily googable and was hailed as a victory by the GGers? Yes, conflict-of-interest should be disclosed, but sodding Patreon? As it is now, Kotaku do have to declare that level of interest, which is more than Guardian journalists have to. Somewhere online you can find the BBC's guidelines on conflict-of-interest. It is 16 years since it applied to me, but I seem to remember I was allowed to contribute to charity fundraising drives without that having to be declared if I was involved in a piece about that charity.

  180. Castaigne says

    Incidentally, my point was not that you SHOULDN'T be a dick, per se, it was that you should consider whether it's a factor in you not getting a response that you like when you're a dick.

    1) Except I'm not looking for a response that I'll like. I'm just looking for a factual response. A simple name. That's it.

    2) I don't care if it's a factor I should consider. I don't consider tone arguments valid, so I don't consider it as a factor, period. Or more simply:

    I'm asking whether you've considered that your being a dick is why your question may not have been answered to your satisfaction.

    I don't consider whether someone is being a dick/asshole/whatever or not to be relevant to anything. It's opinion, not data, therefore discarded.

    It's worth noting that he DID respond and explain why that's not a question he wants to answer.

    Yes, I'm aware of that weaselly answer and his stated 'reason'. Never mind that the actual effect is to cause a reader of his comment to assume that one of the list is sociopathic liar and that, since it cannot be determined which of the list IS, all threats received by the people on the list should be dismissed as sociopathic lies until the sociopathic liar is pinpointed.

    when he has answered, just not in a way you'd like

    It wasn't an answer. It was an evasion to a "When did you stop raping babies?"-type question. An answer would be confirmation or denial; we're dealing with FACTS here, that one of the people on the list IS a sociopathic liar, not an opinion.

    "He's either a coward or has a malicious agenda!" (Explicitly ignoring alternatives such as that it might just be because you're being a dick, and creating a dishonestly false dichotomy).

    Considering his pattern through past posts for over 2 years in how he answers questions and what he evades? Yes, those are the two most logical reasons. If you have another logical reason – that isn't just an evasion – I'll be happy to hear it.

  181. Dan Weber says

    At 100+ comments, it may be too late. (Although the comment section seems to not be as bad as I thought it would be, having read through.) But I want to address this from waaaay back:

    Odd that all the threats seem to have originated from anonymous sockpuppet accounts. Cui bono?

    Women really do get more threats on the Internet. It's not just Team Blue women. Any women. Megan McArdle is a Team Grey writer who gets a huge pile of abuse; her male coworkers at the Atlantic who took over her column when she was on vacation were shocked by how much abuse comes in, mostly from Team Blue.

    One thing about this point is that the abuse can come from all sides. Which makes sense: our primal lizard brains love beating the shit out of the other side, but people and society have built up barriers so we don't feel compelled to behead our neighbor the instant he covets our mule. One of the big thing that each side in a war (cultural or otherwise) does is to excuse the lizard brain. "Oh, it's okay to be mean to that person, because [reasons]."

    Which is why everyone should be suspicious of [reasons]. When someone says "no, I can't be racist or sexist because [how I vote / who my friends are / who I am / something the other side did / that time I gave that beggar a dollar / whatever]", they are giving free reign to their primal lizard brain. Really bad shit in society only happens when we make excuses for not behaving like decent people. Beware of any group or person telling you the ends justify the means. Any excuse like, "yeah, that thing our side did might look bad, but it's excused because of [reasons]" should set off sirens.

    (Which is one of the things I really like about Popehat: the variety of social, cultural, and political interests among the main posters. This is what avoids culture wars: seeing the people on the other side as people.)

    I don't wish to declare allegiance to either side, but I have zero problem believing that those women have received death threats, not necessarily because "they are on the other side of the group that hates women," but because the fact is that women gets lot of death threats.

  182. burgerkind says

    Sociopathic liar is obviously referring to Quinn. See the gaslighting/emotional abuse evidenced in "thezoepost", see Mallorie Nasrallah's story of her experience with Quinn, see the Wizardchan thing, et cetera

  183. says

    On my first 'real' job in the field (IT) we would get semi-regular visits from the postal inspectors for the death threats coming through the mail (it was a politically tinged 501( c )3/4 combo sharing offices and staff). So I've had a low grade interest in death threats for quite a while. I might have glazed over on a few posts but so far as I can tell, most of the death threat talk on this thread has not been that good because a couple of very basic points are being ignored:

    1. Sometimes people are just mean and nasty. They might ally with one cause or another but the alignments are almost random. They're in it for the lulz and they get psychic satisfaction at asserting themselves through death threats. That makes them self-appointed members of the faction and not really reflective of the larger group. It's not really possible to figure out whether you're really dealing with an ideological or non-ideological threatener right away
    2. False flags are possible and it's been alleged that there are active attempts at that right now:
    https://storify.com/LadyFuzztail/gamergate-may-be-a-victim-of-a-false-flag-operati
    3. There seems to be a cultural difference between how the red teams and blue teams react to death threats. Blue team seems to culturally be comfortable talking about them more whereas 'shake it off' and 'goes with the territory' seem to be significant cultural responses for team red.
    4. You *can* get reliable signals about how a group feels about dox attacks and death threats by the response structures that get built inside the movement to self-police.

    I hope and pray nobody who is being threatened on either side gets hurt or killed. Wake me up when somebody gets arrested because that is the time for those not obsessed with #gamergate to definitively figure out whether there's a real problem.

  184. says

    1. The proprietors of this website disagree with each other all the time. Clark and I have strongly disagreed on this particular topic (specifically, our different takes on Pax Dickinson). I can't believe I have to say this. The notion that people with different opinions might collaborate on a forum seems alien to some people, and that's sad.

    2. I have been in trial. I am still very tired. I have not read this thread. It looks like people are not behaving well. I hope they will behave better. I must live in hope.

    3. I am writing my take on GamerGate, probably for Monday or so.

  185. says

    Now I've skimmed the comments.

    I DENOUNCE GOODY CLARK. I DENOUNCE HIM THREE TIMES, LET HIM BE TAKEN FROM THIS PLACE AND BROUGHT ROUND TO SOME OTHER PLACE AND HIS INDICIA OF POPEHAT RANK STRIPPED ROUGHLY FROM HIM.

    I HEREBY OFFICIALLY REVOKE THE MAGISTERIAL SEAL OF APPROVAL THAT WAS PLACED ON CLARK'S POST BY MY FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY DENOUNCE IT WHILE I WAS IN A TRIAL.

    FROM NOW ON CLARK MAY ONLY POST PRE-APPROVED POSTS SO THAT OUR WORD SHALL BE HARMONIOUS. SILENCE THE DISCORD.

    THE POPEHAT HAS SPOKEN.

  186. Grifter says

    [edited to add who I'm talking to]

    @Castaigne:

    " Except I'm not looking for a response that I'll like. I'm just looking for a factual response. A simple name. That's it."

    And that's the only response you find acceptable–despite him having already answered his reasons for not wanting to do so. Ignoring his answer because it's not what you want is exactly what I was talking about.

    I do wish you were a little more competent about these sorts of philosophical points before you start hand-waving. Saying "I don't care" about an argument does not actually address it. A "Tone argument" is one that dismisses your point based on its tone. That's not what I'm doing. I said that, given he doesn't owe you a response, demanding one while being a dick is counter productive. You not wanting to acknowledge that as an argument because you want to handwave it away is absurd. Are you just trolling? Or do you walk into stores and say "Hey, f**k you a*****e, I demand some free ketchup packets" and expect them to comply? I'm sorry that you want to ignore arguments without actually being able to address them, but that isn't really my problem.

    And, just to be clear, explaining that you will not answer a question for specific reasons IS a form of answering the question–or at the very least is a response to the question.

    "If you have another logical reason – that isn't just an evasion – I'll be happy to hear it."

    You've conceded he does not owe you a response. Yet you were not happy to hear that being a dick might be a factor in not getting someone to do something for you that they are not obliged to do. That's not an "evasion", that's noting the simple fact that in general being a dick to someone who doesn't owe you what you're asking for doesn't make them MORE likely to do something for you because you asked that they would not otherwise do. You haven't contested this as a fact–which I think would be absurd of you to do, instead you say you "don't care". Which means you are being contradictory. You are NOT happy to hear an alternative–you dismiss it out of hand without presenting an actual justification to do so other than your own desire to ignore it.

  187. Grifter says

    I think I'll stop responding to Castaigne, just because I fear Ken White's disappointment almost as much as his wrath, and I am never quite sure whether I'm one of the ones disappointing him.

    Hey, Popehat really is like my parents!

  188. Max says

    @TMLutas one real case of GGers being attacked was a young woman who got phoned up at her home and called a 'slut' for being a GG supporter. That one phone call was justifiably terrifying for her, and the person who did it is totally and completely in the wrong. In this case, the GGer shut down channels and funding drives and reacted with appropriate shock. Later on she came back and rejoined the debate with praiseworthy vim and I don't want to diminish what she went through before that. Many other women who are against GG have been driven out of the debate for less, some have taken more abuse before quitting, but Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn receive staggering amounts of threats of rape and murder and keep going somehow.
    No side should receive any threats. But the idea that it is somehow equal in the intensity of misdeeds is untrue. Milo Yianapolous used to think the correct response to death threats was to laugh them off, and that was a reason to despise Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn for making a fuss about them. What happened next is totally wrong, and I support him in his shock and horror at the death threats he received. They are never a joke, never acceptable. We should always condemn them and I condemn the death threats made against Milo Y, and those against the too numerous to mention 'feminists and SJWs'.

  189. Castaigne says

    @Ken:

    The proprietors of this website disagree with each other all the time…..The notion that people with different opinions might collaborate on a forum seems alien to some people, and that's sad.

    I don't know why you'd find it sad, as it seems perfectly natural to me, but that probably stems from me not seeing this as a forum. I see Popehat as a brand, like Wonkette or Nike or the ABA or the FDA or any other organization. A forum would be a place where -I- could register and create posts at will, like Free Republic or Where Liberty Dwells; I see this place as "Popehat Authors issue Pronouncements and lowly commenters comment on the Popehat Pronouncements." Like news articles by the NYT or whatever. Blogs, newspapers, all the same thing, really.

    I have been in trial. I am still very tired.

    Then rest! Real life is far more important than this.

    I am writing my take on GamerGate, probably for Monday or so.

    Er…ok. *puzzle*

  190. Kevin says

    @Dan Weber
    Not going to argue with most of what you're saying, but this claim:

    Women really do get more threats on the Internet.

    reminded me I just saw this come across my twitter feed this morning.

  191. says

    @Max:

    No side should receive any threats.

    100% agreed.

    But the idea that it is somehow equal in the intensity of misdeeds is untrue.

    On what do you base this?

    As @TMLutas said earlier, the rate of reporting of misdeeds is not necessarily equal, not is there any central registry of harassment.

  192. says

    Only two things to add:

    One, most of you are just making Clark's point, which is that, regardless of the merits, "GamerGate" has become a stand-in for a larger cultural phenomenon. The disagreements in this thread have broken down on predictable left/right grounds, even though the original issue itself is almost apolitical.

    Two, who will break it to Castaigne that these blog posts are not, in fact, published by a sentient hat controlled by the hive mind of the men (and bulls) on the masthead?

  193. Grifter says

    @Mikee, @Kevin:

    Both graphs come from Pew. I'm not sure I really want to put the effort into figuring out why there's that weird disparity (the one that says women had more problems is broken down by age and gender and looks at a specific segment, while the one that says the opposite is overall)–does someone who's familiar with Pew/statistics have a quick answer?

  194. sinij says

    that these blog posts are not, in fact, published by a sentient hat

    No words could describe my level of disappointment after reading these news.

  195. Al says

    does someone who's familiar with Pew/statistics have a quick answer?

    I doubt there is one. Someone saying "I'm going to fucking kill you" in a DOTA 2 match and someone saying "Guess what bitch? I know where you live. You and [spouses real name] live at [real address]." are probably both going to count as threats of physical harm but one has a bit more impact than the other. Is that kind of thing quantified? Can it be?

  196. Castaigne says

    @Ken White:

    I DENOUNCE GOODY CLARK. I DENOUNCE HIM THREE TIMES,…HAS SPOKEN

    *frowns* You really shouldn't do that, even in fun. Clark is a Popehat author; his articles should be supported and endorsed by the Popehat Author Consensus (or whatever you call yourselves) without reservation, simply because he is a member.

    =====

    @Grifter:

    And that's the only response you find acceptable

    Right, because it's the only factual response. I'm not interested in opinions on why he should evade confirmation or denial; I want to know the facts.

    Ignoring his answer because it's not what you want is exactly what I was talking about.

    Ok, let's do it your way. If we accept Clark's evasion/reason as to why he will not name names, then do you agree that we must by default assume all members of that list are sociopathic liars since we cannot confirm which one is and thus dismiss the threats against them as manufactured?

    A "Tone argument" is one that dismisses your point based on its tone. That's not what I'm doing.

    I know that's not what you're doing. It's what Clark is doing; he's said as much to me long before now.

    I said that, given he doesn't owe you a response, demanding one while being a dick is counter productive.

    Demanding one while NOT being a dick is counterproductive as well. Clark is not going to answer whether I am/am not being a dick, because Clark. So whether or not I'm a dick is irrelevant, wouldn't you say?

    Or do you walk into stores and say "Hey, f**k you a*****e, I demand some free ketchup packets" and expect them to comply?

    Serious answer? If I am a paying customer in those stores, absolutely. The Customer Is Always Right.

    Yet you were not happy to hear that being a dick might be a factor in not getting someone to do something for you that they are not obliged to do.

    No, it's not 'not happy' at all. I feel no emotion about it. It's just that I consider 'being a dick' is irrelevant. Clark wouldn't feel obliged to do anything for me for any reason at any time; he's made that clear in the past.

    That's not an "evasion"

    Correct – it is his ANSWER that can be categorized as an evasion.

    I don't think you understand. Let me put it more clearly:

    FACT FROM CLARK: "I do know that at least one of the people on the list is a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention"

    REASON GIVEN BY CLARK AS TO WHY HE WILL NOT NAME LIST: "I have zero interest in dragging any individual's name through the mud, and my thesis statement is "this whole thing is not about any one individual". So I respectfully refuse to answer that."

    RESULT: Clark states one of the people on the list is a sociopathic liar. But because he has "zero interest in dragging any individual's name through the mud", he refuses to name the person on the list. I consider THAT an evasion, as all the names on the list are dragged through the mud, as we must assume that ALL the names on the list could be sociopathic liars, since we are unable to confirm which one.

    This is assuming that Clark argues in good faith – and I do – and that he is telling the truth that one of people on the list is a sociopathic liar.

    So, to confirm, you do not see his reason as an evasion?

    I think I'll stop responding to Castaigne, just because I fear Ken White's disappointment almost as much as his wrath, and I am never quite sure whether I'm one of the ones disappointing him.

    Ken does not mind honest and blunt discussion. I wouldn't worry about it.

  197. stakkalee says

    Pew breaks the harassment down into "less severe" and "more severe" types of harassment – "less severe" includes name-calling and embarassment, "more severe" includes physical threats, sustained harassment, stalking and sexual harassment. The Pew link Clark posted specifically mentions that women, especially young women aged 18-24, "experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels."

  198. Grifter says

    @Al, @stakkalee:

    The graphs use the term "called offensive names", for example, in both cases.

    In one graph: 27 percent of all internet users, 51 percent of men 18-24, and 50 percent of women 18-24 have gotten that.

    In the other graph, 32 percent of men overall and 22 percent of women overall have.

    That's a big disparity that seems unaffected by the quality of the conduct at least in terms of the survey (unless you're saying that the quality affects self-reporting more in one group than the others, which might answer the question if that is what you meant).

  199. Max says

    @Al if you go to 8chan they are encouraging any GGer who receives any threat, implied threat, or strong insult to record it. It is in their interest to collect a good haul, and they are strongly encouraging their side to report. Which is an excellent development.

    Both sides need to police themselves over this, and hopefully the GGers telling their supporters that each death and rape threat is a propoganda win for the other side will have an impact.

    But, it is clearly true that the GGers have been doing a lot more and a lot worse in the death/rape/bomb/massacre threats. Which is a matter of public record. On 8chan the GGers are convinced it is a false flag operation designed to make them look bad. That is not how my side thinks. We might see how outrageous a remark needs to be on 8chan to be marked as satire but we tend not to call in death threats, and the few who do are too unbalanced to do it in the opposition's name .

    Plan: both sides see death threats as off limits and calls to home addresses as off limits. Insults not to be whined about (but if 'neckbeard' or 'Jew-media' or 'basement-dwelling' or 'feminazi' are used – calling foul and mockery for stereotyping are allowed).

  200. sinij says

    That isn't to say there isn't a conversation to be had about how big companies influence reviews, but GG is about getting rid of SJWs and feminists not Big Game.

    I agree with this. GG is about getting rid of SJW who proxy for feminists. At the same time you also need to mention that key feminist's goal is turning gaming into another broadcast platform for their message. Seeing how gaming is predominantly a form of escapism (an outlet used to avoid real-life issues), such goal is likely counter-productive to producing quality games.

  201. says

    @Castaigne – if you want to convince me you are one of those people who is utterly incapable of participating in online communities, you are doing a good job.

    I return in official capacity in maybe 3 hours.

  202. Ken in Nj says

    GG is about getting rid of SJW who proxy for feminists

    Funny, the GG folks have been swearing up and down that it's about "ethics in journalism"

    huh

  203. Max says

    Oh, and in UK law, saying 'one of the people on this list is a sociopathic liar, but I won't say which' means that all can sue, and you have to have reasonable grounds for saying so or you libeled all of them and all can claim. The Police Association has used this to get all possible coppers paid if one was anonymously libeled. (Was it a 'Conservatory Case' because that was what participants used to spend their libel winnings on? I forget.)

    Luckily, as Popehat has made clear, the US isn't bound by our notoriously over-strict libel laws. US citizens get to libel a group based on only one person being at fault without saying which, and without evidence. Actually, I think that is marvellous, but you can see the thinking behind making someone civilly liable for cowardly attacks on a group for the unproven misdeeds of only one. However, free speech for all means tolerating it for rogues.

  204. stakkalee says

    @Grifter, the report finds that young women receive the "less severe" and some of the "more severe" types of abuse at the same levels as men (almost all within the 2.4% margin of error,) but they receive much more of the other 2 types of "more severe" harassment, stalking (7% of men vs. 26% of women) and sexual harassment (13% of men vs. 25% of women.)

  205. says

    @Max:

    Oh, and in UK law, saying 'one of the people on this list is a sociopathic liar, but I won't say which' means t

    I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever in the UK.

    For the record, I've taken great pains to NOT call individuals out by name (read back through the post and comments: not once have I identified either of the two principals in Stage One of GamerGate). Saying that I knew that one of individuals names was a liar muddied this stance a bit. Perhaps I should have said nothing. But since I already did, I recommend @Bazzar's link: http://theflounce.com/harassment-abuse-apologism-sanitizing-abuse-social-justice-spheres/

  206. says

    @Ken in NJ:

    Funny, the GG folks have been swearing up and down that it's about "ethics in journalism"

    So some GG say it's about X, and another says it's about Y…and you attack him because he's not "on talking point"? See the point I've made several times: both sides in GG are expressing ill formed rage, because this is a tribal conflict, and it's not about any one thing.

  207. Grifter says

    @stakkalee:

    Only if you look at the one broken down by age group–look at the other graph, where women still get it more, but the margin is much smaller.

    It seems the age grouping has a significant impact on the overall rates and, when you look at ALL women vs. ALL men, the rates aren't the same, or as bad, as when you look at the 18-24 subgroup. Age must be a significant factor in some manner–whether that's because it correlates to something else or not, I don't know if it's addressed, but in the specific two categories you cited, in the OVERALL groups, stalking is M= 6 and W= 9, and Sexual harassment is M= 4 and W= 7. Still statistically significant, but vastly different than the numbers you gave that were specific to the age group.

  208. sinij says

    @Ken in Nj

    Funny, the GG folks have been swearing up and down that it's about "ethics in journalism"

    You apparently have me confused with GG spokesperson or a member. I only offer my own conclusions and observations.

  209. stakkalee says

    @Grifter, I'd imagine the reason for younger Internet users to have experienced more harassment is likely due to what Pew calls "lifestyle qualities," namely "those who weave the Internet more tightly into their daily lives." Unfortunately I can't find the crosstabs for the poll so I don't know how the rest of the age cohorts break down, but another interesting point I found from the summary was this quote:

    Those with more “severe” harassment experiences responded differently to their most recent incident with harassment than those with less “severe” experiences. Those who have ever experienced stalking, physical threats, or sustained or sexual harassment were more likely to take multiple steps in response to their latest incident than those who have only experienced name-calling and embarrassment, 67% vs. 30%. They are more likely to take actions like unfriending or blocking the person responsible, confronting the person online, reporting the person to a website or online service, changing their username or deleting their profile, and ending their attendance at certain offline events and places.

    It seems like having previously been the target of the "more severe" harassment is liable to make people treat further examples of harassment of any kind more seriously. (A bit of a "duh" moment, but still interesting.)

  210. Ken in Nj says

    So some GG say it's about X, and another says it's about Y…and you attack him because he's not "on talking point"?

    "Attack"? No. Just an observation. Because while you hold that it's not really about one thing, the vast majority of GG supporters I have seen say that it really is about ethics and journalism, and that's all. So when talking with various GG supporters who aren;t you it's surprising to see someone who doesn't

    See the point I've made several times: both sides in GG are expressing ill formed rage,

    Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

    because this is a tribal conflict, and it's not about any one thing.

    I will concede that it is rapidly becoming a tribal conflict, but that's not how it started. And despite your assertions to the contrary, the prime motivation behind gamergate hasn't changed since the day the channers on /v/ discovered EGs 8000 word anti-Zoe manifesto

  211. Ken in Nj says

    You apparently have me confused with GG spokesperson or a member. I only offer my own conclusions and observations.

    Fair enough.

  212. Rob Crawford says

    What comes up is a litany of conservative press outlets that have consistently been platforms for racism, homophobia, slutshaming, and dubiously sourced reporting

    Translation: "I will not believe that information because bad thoughts."

    I'll state flat out I believe the "Blue" team are pathological liars, and toss "Easy Mode" Scalzi on the list. They are desperate to maintain that they are "journalists" and not in the least bit invested in the material they are paid to report on. They should go back to reporting on the latest meeting of the He-Man Womyn's club until they learn to function in a society not organized around their prejudices.

  213. Jacob Schmidt says

    The fact that unethical GamerGaters resort to random, anonymous acts of virtual terrorism is a sign that they don't have power, while unethical progressives do have power.

    Unfortunately, no:

    As much as I find the worst partisans of the GG side execrable, I'd rather have to put up with them than support any more scalp-counting SJW witchhunts.

    If someone's launching legit death threats, find and prosecute those individuals.
    But the self-satisfied moral preening is just tiresome.

    Power differentials are interesting. They frequently operate by social license: people will put up with more, excuse more, and punish more lightly when the transgressor is among the privileged class. White people committing more drug crimes per capita, but black people getting more punishments per capita, is an obvious case. In this case, a fairly common refrain is the downplaying of threats, harassment, bigotry, etc, but god forbid anyone seem tiresome.

    Translation: "I will not believe that information because bad thoughts."

    I'm not sure how you got there from "These people have already destroyed their own credibility." I'm sure it's an interesting tale, though.

  214. Castaigne says

    @Rob Crawford:

    I'll state flat out I believe the "Blue" team are pathological liars, and toss "Easy Mode" Scalzi on the list. They are desperate to maintain that they are "journalists" and not in the least bit invested in the material they are paid to report on.

    Interesting. I've always gotten the impression that Scalzi, PZ Meyers, et al., have always been very invested in what they blogged about….and were not paid to do so. I'd be interested in hard information that they are merely paid shills.

    What leads you to believe that the so-called Blue Team (I personally reject the terms as meaningless) are pathological liars? Do you think their claims and objections should be summarily dismissed? What about the claims and objections of the "Red Team"?

  215. Bruce says

    Being in another timezone makes it hard to keep up with the flow sometimes.

    But maybe the blue side is winning because it is better, not just at the game/war but better for more people. It is in the constructed definitions of this argument. Being Catholic is great if you were an insider, but pretty ordinary if you were not and this idea had to be protested. The red team thought it was OK to hold other humans in bondage and that idea had to be protested too. The idea that women, black people, and others should be allowed to have agency and equal treatment also had to be protested. (There seemed to be a lot of handwaving in the team definitions so I may have got that wrong.)

    Your claims of entryism for this particular phase of the endless battle seems to ignore the 30 year shift in demographics that happened as a result of market forces. The entry of 'others' happened despite the marketing. So when they look around and realise "Hey, there's a lot of here. Would you mind not treating us poorly?" was that a deliberate Alinsky tactic? I had to look up Alinsky too. He seems to be a repackaged Sun-Tzu.

    Sure GG may not be all racists and misogynists. But all the racists and misogynists are on GG. I think they should be protested too.

  216. Al says

    @Max

    Both sides need to police themselves over this, and hopefully the GGers telling their supporters that each death and rape threat is a propoganda win for the other side will have an impact.

    Gators will certainly say that publicly but in reality they know that GG is impossible to police. To 4chan that's a feature, not a bug.

  217. Max says

    Another element of UK law is saying 'I'm not suggesting Y is a sociopathic liar, I'm just mentioning that X is saying so' means you are joining in that statement, and if it is proved to be libel then you have repeated that libel. We are so backward here. See the Lord McAlpine case for details about how this applies to online social media in this country. Doesn't apply to Popehat. Just saying.

    Oh, and Clark has his acolytes but Ken has his flying monkey minions and I for one am afraid of having my little brass buttons ripped from my coat and my fez knocked from my head. Here is hoping his disappointment in those who have hassled his blog mate isn't too severe.

  218. Kevin Kirkpatrick says

    The blog post, though, went beyond "she told me she loved me and then she showed she didn't", and alleged that the unfaithful partner had slept with powerful media figures in the small world of computer games journalism…figures who either reviewed games coded by the unfaithful partner, or managed writers who did review the games. The alleged behavior is (at best) a breach of common sense, and (at worst) a major breach of journalistic ethics.

    You left out a huge part of the story. When the jilted boyfriend engaged in his smear campaign, he'd forgotten the one thing that just does not fly in the gaming community: False Accusations. Like in many male-dominated areas of our society, the extreme skepticism expressed toward potentially false accusations, and the disproportionate repercussions unleashed on those who cannot back up said accusations, are only surpassed by the unwavering consistency with which they are brought to bear.

    When the gaming community first encountered this man's accusations that a woman developer had engaged in unethical behavior – sleeping with reviewers to garner better reviews – the backlash was fast… and it was FIERCE. "Where's your EVIDENCE?!", the gaming community wailed, seemingly in a single, collective voice. "Pics!", many articulated, "Or it did not happen!" (a common refrain from a community that simply will not jump to a verdict of "guilty" until an ironclad case against the accused has been presented).

    Driven by their philosophy that "False accusations are worse than committing the alleged crime", coupled with their superhuman ability to overcome any bias that might cause them to apply the mantra asymmetrically, many in the gaming community responded to the boyfriend's lack of evidence with pure, unmitigated hate. To many, retribution against the man who'd falsely accused a woman became an obsession. Countless hours were dedicated to digging up and exposing every last detail of his personal life – prior relationships, failed business endeavors, even traffic violations of his youth… no source of potential dirt was left un-examined.

    Some gamers took their anger to the next level: making every effort to harass not just the false-accuser, but his friends, family, and professional colleagues. Anonymous death threats began pouring in, and not only threats against him. He received explicit descriptions of how his loved ones would feel the pain of his transgression – one note detailed not only how his parents would be kidnapped, tortured, and killed; but went so far as to include their street address. Of course, these threats garnered no sympathy from the frothing mob: if this man deigned to level false accusations against a woman, many of them argued, why shouldn't we believe he (or one of his cohorts) just sent the threats to himself? On top of being a false-accuser, the man was quickly painted with one more despicable label: "Professional Victim!".

    Long story short, the man learned the hard way: If you are EVER considering leveling accusations against anyone, male or female, you damned sure better be ready to back those accusations up. No way in hell is the gaming community going to stand for anything less.

  219. says

    @Kevin Kirkpatrick:

    You left out a huge part of the story

    Absolutely true, I left out the parts I don't care about, which bore me to tears, which I could not get good data on even if I wanted to, and which detract from my thesis of the Thousand Year Culture War.

    I also left out a complete explanation of what the Internet is, how graphics coprocesssors work, and my thoughts on Zork II. Because none of them have anything to do with the point I wanted to make.

    If you write a blog post you should feel free to put in exactly what you want and leave out the parts you don't care about.

  220. MarkJ says

    Question of the Day for the Blue Team:

    What happens if the Red Team collectively throws up its hands and decides to just get medieval on your a**?

    Alinskyism is a fun game to play…..until it isn't.

  221. Max says

    @Al – actually 4chan chucked the Gaters out. They consider moot a traitor as a result. They have migrated to a new site, 8chan, where they are allowed to plot and bewail their fate. For those rebellious, here thir Prison ordain'd, Telling each other: 'What though the field be lost? All is not lost; the unconquerable Will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield: And what is else not to be overcome?' and making Heaven of this 8chan hell.

  222. Hattori says

    You left out a huge part of the story

    Will people forget the death threats, betrayals, bribes and small time video game drama and focus on the point of the damn article?

  223. Hattori says

    What happens if the Red Team collectively throws up its hands and decides to just get medieval on your a**?

    They would cause way more harm if they just stopped voting.

  224. Max says

    @Kevin Kirkpatrick – could you point me at the site which details the threats and harassment that Eron Gjoni received? So far I'm eight pages into google and I'm only finding the death threats his vengeful rant brought down on the heads Zoe Quinn et al,. Oh, and recent ones with him saying he was unrepentant. If he did receive such treatment that is outrageous. A source would be very useful. I'm not being lazy, just can't find back up to your 'full story'. If it is there, but buried and ignored that is interesting but as I said, source is needed.

  225. Castaigne says

    @MarkJ:

    What happens if the Red Team collectively throws up its hands and decides to just get medieval on your a**?

    What, you mean if Red Team decides to actually bomb a talk by Anita Sarkeesian, assassinate female developers, and subdue the rest with rape squads, instead of just threatening to do so? Well, I imagine it would become legally problematic for Team Red and lead to extreme amounts of vilification in the media. I think you'd also see major backpedaling by various individuals who have aligned to it.

  226. says

    One reason the left appears to win is that failed left-wing movements are no longer considered Left. Another reason is that victorious right-wing movements are frequently reclassified as Left.

    You can see these phenomena most clearly in the case of the aftermath of the American Civil War. The losing side engaged in a "long march through the institutions" which first caused a Yankee withdrawal from the occupation of Dixie. It was followed by the growing respectability of eugenics and it then culminated in the capture of the Presidency in 1912.

    Come to think of it, the standard left-wing rhetoric about indigenous movements might have been injected into liberalism by Wilson looking for an excuse for Confederate independence.

    On the other hand, after eugenics failed, racism was re-re-classified as right-wing. (Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia comrade!

  227. Max says

    @Mark J

    What happens if the Red Team collectively throws up its hands and decides to just get medieval on your a**?

    What are you suggesting they would do? Make bomb, death and massacre threats? Or actually carry through on them? Or medieval – does that mean maces and swords? Or what? Be clear please.

    What we would do if the worst possible interpretation is made of your words? Be rather afraid, and some of us would be dead or maimed. Doubt it would stop the criticism of your side much though,

    If the best possible interpretation? What is the best possible interpretation of 'getting medieval on your ass'? I don't know. Join in the plainsong and illuminate some scrolls together?

  228. Holo says

    Full disclosure: I'm new around here, and not a gamer per se–I don't cruise IGN looking for the latest release, but I enjoy a good game of Call of Duty or Skyrim every now and then. And I don't know what team to belong to.

    There is never any excuse for death threats. Period. Though I have actually gotten a few threats online ("You should have your property confiscated and you should be sent to Iraq because you voted for Bush" is one that sticks out for me–which is funny, because I voted for Gore), that's nothing compared to having your home address added to the threat. So let's establish that.

    However, I'm quite tired of being lumped in with a bunch of lunatics because I hesitantly raise my hand and say "Um…I kinda enjoy playing GTA." Saying that gets an attack from the SJW crowd, as I'm clearly a misogynist for daring to enjoy a violent game. Saying that I enjoy a good shoot-em-up like CoD is grounds for immediate dismissal as a violent, white male who can only feel masculine because killing. (Quite ironic that one of the SJWs who has leveled this charge against me has killed more people than ebola in one night on GTA. I know because I watched him do it, on his sofa at his house.)

    If the pro-Gamergate crowd is pissed off, it's due to the fear that they're going to be screamed at as misogynists because they've occasionally played female characters on Skyrim with the naked cheat on. They're tired of being called names, and they're damned tired of self-proclaimed moralists–may we call them Puritans?–villifying them as enemies of humanity for daring to enjoy Dragon Crown. The overwhelming majority of gamers want to be left the hell alone, without having a SJW screaming in their ear.

    I absolutely want more women to be involved in gaming (though one stat I've seen says that 46% of gamers are already female), and I would happily play a game designed by women. As a matter of fact, I already do. But calling all male gamers misogynist jerks who want to preserve the all-boy club and secretly want to rape and murder is not the way to get female game designers the attention they deserve. It is going to piss off the 54% of gamers that are male, and not a few of the female gamer crowd too.

    We need to cease fire here, and realize that all of this is counter-productive. Calling each other ISIS because the other side doesn't agree with everything we like or want is not going to make things better or easier. It feels good, granted. Carpet bombing the crap out of people feels good too, but it doesn't usually work in ending the war.

    Finally, for my friends on Team Blue: ending (or worse, beginning) your post with rants about conservativism, or Republicans, or Bush or whatever is the cause du jour–it does not help your argument. It angers people who might otherwise find common ground with. The same goes for those who rant about Obama and such, but I see a LOT more of it coming from progressives. Not everything is political. My guess is that there's a lot of pro-Gamergate men and women who voted for Obama, but feel that the anti-GG crowd is merely wrong.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

  229. Kevin Kirkpatrick says

    @Max @Clark

    Whoosh….

    (do you honestly see any plausibility in a story about gamergaters giving a shit about punishing those who level false accusations against a woman?)

  230. Jacob Schmidt says

    So far I'm eight pages into google and I'm only finding the death threats his vengeful rant brought down on the heads Zoe Quinn et al,.

    There's this. Nothing against Gjoni, specifically. They seem to range from genuinely shitty to innocuous. For instance, there's "castrate gamergaters" (pretty shitty), then "Fuck gamergaters" (not nice, but I don't see any moral problems with that), then there's "You're not as clever as you think you are" which, I mean, isn't anything worth complaining about.

  231. Donald Campbell says

    Lovely post. Interesting discussion. I call foul on 'Blue Team' and declare them loser as they (Mica) had the first evocation of Hitler.

  232. Max says

    @Holo if you want to play spunkgargleweewees then that is entirely up to you. I think I speak for me and all my SJW friends when I say: please yourself. And if you want to play Skyrim in the nude and in drag, well hey, whatever gets you through the night. Just watch out for Lydia -she is a right fascist ('Skyrim is for the Nords' indeed.).

  233. Wes says

    @Clark

    Would you care to explain your secular argument against gay-marriage or perhaps provide a link to where you've explained it before? I'm genuinely curious as to what angle you're coming from.

  234. Max says

    @Kevin Kirkpatrick –

    So that was satire, and Mr Gjoni hasn't received extreme threats, just the people he accused? You have to remember that us SJWs are gamers as well. Sometimes our cultural-marxist indoctrination and need to attend schul clashes so badly with our anti-sex feminism that we get things confused, but we play games and enjoy them.

  235. Orwells Spectre says

    Excellent, Excellent Essay! I will be sending it out to a few folks. Perfectly encapsulated the war and tactics we have seen so far.

    The entryism is of the usual type: people with blue/pink ideals join red / gray groups and try to achieve social status with in those groups, then use that social status to push for the admission of – and promotion of – more blue/pink members. Once the blue/pink members achieve a majority they then change the rules of admission to create a lock on their new conquest (in the case of academia, for example, even blue researchers in the Netherlands of all places, were shocked by how blatant the process was).

    On another blog I had likened this to raiders storming various castles and strongholds, slaughtering or driving off the former inhabitants and leaving a garrison force in place to prevent insurrection. However, I was failing to piece it together in the larger context as you did so.

    Another addendum to the list of arrogant overreach is that the Cathedral is pushing to make it illegal for religious leaders to NOT perform gay marriages.

    I appreciate how even-handed you are in your approach to this, although I can't help but feel that the Left is for more worrisome in ascendance. Maybe it's a denial of Natural Law, maybe it is a sense of self-righteousness that make Holy Rollers look modest, but it just seems their appetite for power is so much more voracious.

  236. says

    @Orwells Spectre

    Excellent, Excellent Essay! I will be sending it out to a few folks. Perfectly encapsulated the war and tactics we have seen so far.

    Thank you!

    @Donald Campbell

    Lovely post.

    Thank you!

    @John Yuma

    Excellent work.

    Thank you!

  237. says

    @Wes

    Would you care to explain your secular argument against gay-marriage or perhaps provide a link to where you've explained it before? I'm genuinely curious as to what angle you're coming from.

    I'd love to…at some point. It takes me ~8 hours to write one of these monsters, and those hours have a lot of competition for other good and useful tasks.

  238. sinij says

    @Kevin Kirkpatrick

    do you honestly see any plausibility in a story about X giving a shit about punishing those who level false accusations against Y?

    Sure.

    You seems to assert that when X = gamers and Y = women this no longer holds true? What about when X= SJW and Y = gamers?

  239. Paul Moloney says

    "Oh, and in UK law, saying ‘one of the people on this list is a sociopathic liar, but I won’t say which’ means that all can sue, and you have to have reasonable grounds for saying so or you libeled all of them and all can claim. "

    In Ireland too. A few journalists say if the group you identify numbered 20 or less they can claim to be individually targets. Recently all members of a religious institute did just this when it was said they were homophobic.

    P

  240. Holo says

    @Max: Then I would not characterize you as a SJW. A SJW can't stand the idea of someone doing something without pontificating on the social impact of it. My playing Sparkgarglewees (which, incidentally, does sound like a fun game at that) would upset a SJW because I'm asserting my male dominance (being naked), being misogynist (being in drag…er, naked), and patriarchal (because anything named Sparkgarglewees is clearly anti-feminist).

    Being a SJW is a lot like Puritanism…the fear that someone, somewhere is having fun, in which "fun" is replaced by "not thinking like I do." It's easier to say SJW than, say, totalitarian.

    Since you sound like someone I would not mind gaming with, you can't be a SJW. You also make sense.

  241. Paul Moloney says

    "One of the ‘charges’ of GG is that a writer who did a piece for the Guardian left out her support for a subject on Patreon. In fact, she had originally mentioned it but this mainstream journalism outlet judged it irrelevant and the editors cut that bit out.
    (*I am an out and proud geek myself – and gamer)"

    Yup – Jenn Frank whose article as you point out passed the ethical standards of the lawyers of one the UK's largest newspaper and yet was still subjected to use abuse that she left the industry after 9 years.

  242. Arthur Kirkland says

    @Clarkhat

    I agree with you on this. I used to think that Team Red was honest in its like for the free market. I've since learned that I was wrong

    Boy, are you going to take it hard when you find out the social conservatives not only don't believe their rhetoric about freedom and limited government but are instead a bunch of ardent authoritarian nanny-staters with a substantial helping of superstition and a corresponding disdain for science and reason.

  243. says

    @Arthur Kirkland

    Boy, are you going to take it hard when you find out the social conservatives not only don't believe their rhetoric about freedom and limited government but are instead a bunch of ardent authoritarian nanny-staters with a substantial helping of superstition and a corresponding disdain for science and reason.

    Sadly, I agree with Arthur here. I used to think that Red lived up to its rhetoric. Some – maybe even many – of them do, but large numbers are willing to crap all over personal freedom in the name of the drug war, or in the name of supporting law and order, or in the name of keeping the "bad people" in their place, or in the name of social stability, or in the name of helping big companies succeed, or…

  244. Guesting says

    Wow, this comment section is below of the standard I'm used to while reading Popehat(reading since the Oatmeal saga). For claiming to have the high moral, all these anti-GG sure act like immature kids.

    First, both sides HAVE trolls. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to find threats of any kind, people fired over their stances in the issue and just textbook level assholes in BOTH sides.

    Second, we all could provide proof that pro-GG individuals have been indeed harassed, threatened and bullied but anti-GG hand waives it away by stating over and over again "well, these 3 females have been harassed more so it doesn't really matter how many people in the other side have been harassed". It is childish, you either acknowledge it or get off your high horse. (note that this is also something anti-GG criticizes GG of doing by questioning death threats regarding the females involved)

    anti-GG has the media in its side and even then it still manages to stoop even lower that GG at times. In GG it is clear that some of them are crazy, blunt or plain trolls. However, we have "journalists" on the anti-GG side advocating for bullying, Did anyone in anti-GG said anything? No…. and when people got Adobe to ask Gawker to stop using their logo everyone went batshit crazy and starting saying how Adobe promotes rapist (even one of the harassed ladies, shouldn't her be happy that Adobe cut ties with an organization that employes editors that promote bullying since, you know, she was bullied). That speaks volumes on anti-GG

    So in conclusion, assholes both sides but that shouldn't interfere in the main discussion(whether you think is ethics or cultural warfare, you will discuss your point of view). Otherwise if we use that fine logic, we could denounce the people that protested at Ferguson because assholes That didn't even live in the city traveled there just to loot and cause chaos. Tainted movement Ferguson people, good luck next try!

    You didn't do that before so why are you doing it now?

  245. Anonymous says

    1) The author is buying into SJW side's narrative, in which they're the force of progress and #gamergate the reactionaries. Let me just say that it doesn't quite look that way from this side of the trenches.
    1.1) Of course the whole narration of this piece depends on an assumption that there's a clear path of progress rather than random fluctuations. This is unprovable and, in essence, remains to be seen.
    1.2) But let me propose that if there is to be progress, it ultimately depends not on social, but scientific and technological advances. (Social changes follow, not lead.) And science, to work properly, needs to be unbound by dogma. Any ideology not based on unconditional belief in science ultimately goes counter to it, and therefore to progress.

    2) Claims of misogyny towards #gamergate may superficially look plausible (It's undeniable that the "movement" has more males than females, because that's how the demographic of gaming enthusiasts looks.), but claims of racism are simply ridiculous on the grounds of basic statistics alone. There's clearly more people of color here than on the opposing side, and they certainly do not appreciate being ignored, marginalized, treated instrumentally and being denied their identity by their self-appointed "protectors".
    2.1) We don't play Oppression Olympics. Period. If someone doesn't want to see the harassment directed towards #gamergate people by SJWs, nothing will convince him anyway.
    2.2) More and more people join in, and the neophytes always praise the open and welcoming atmosphere, compared to the opposition's uncompromising militarism. I guess we must be doing something right after all.

    3) The bulk of the motivation for #gamergate comes from repeated (and ostensibly coordinated) attempts to silence the discussion on the subject – either by outright censorship or bullying into submission. This led people to believe there is something more to the story that meets the eye, which resulted in bigger interest and scrutiny given to the story's subjects. It's very informative to learn that the other side of the story ignores this simple explanation to substitute their own.

    4) Zoe Quinn's relationship with Nathan Grayson was explicitly confirmed by Stephen Totilo, who defended the latter by claiming it began only after the Quinn-centered article he wrote was published. That claim has subsequently been proven false by examining the pair's social media history.
    4.1) @Ken in NJ: To paraphrase someone who already summed it up better than I ever could: "Kotaku examining Kotaku and finding Kotaku clear of misconduct". You do not assume it proves anything unless you already believe Kotaku is in the right.

    PS) If the author doesn't want to say who the (proven) sociopathic liar in this story is, I won't name her either, but anyone actually following the story really should know by now. I mean, really.

  246. Castaigne says

    @Orwells Spectre:

    Another addendum to the list of arrogant overreach is that the Cathedral is pushing to make it illegal for religious leaders to NOT perform gay marriages.

    Uh, where exactly is this being done? The only mention I've even seen of this is for a for-profit quickie vegas-style deal in Idaho, who avoided it after reincorporating as non-profit religious corporation. Can you provide sources for this, because it's an area of interest for me, especially since all legal cases trying to force Christian Identity churches to perform interracial marriage have failed, even after Loving.

  247. Holo says

    And then there's this, from Forbes' article on the subject:

    There are sexists everywhere, so why do so many people who write about games constantly paint a portrait of the gamer as sexist? There are violent scenes and sex in movies, so why do gamers always get pinned as violent and obsessed with objectifying women?

    There's been plenty of instances of rape and murder on Game of Thrones. Does that make everyone who watches Game of Thrones (to say nothing of George R.R. Martin!) a violent misogynist?

  248. HamOnRye says

    I am surprised that in this article you dont mention Brad Wardell, the CEO of Stardock.

    Based on what I have seen from his comments, Brad would be placed in team Blue. However based on a employee accusation of sexual harassment, that later turned out to be very very false, team Pink has placed him on their hit list and have never let off of him. Even after the employee delivered a public apology that the entirety of the accusation was a fabrication, team Pink continues to paint Brad Wardell as one of the worst things to happen in the game development world.

  249. rochrist says

    Good article. One thing you touched on lightly but needs greater emphasis is that GG is a bit different to other battles to date. In this battle GG are the ones who buy the majority of the games (in question) and the Anti-GG crowd don't. So you have the case where the media overwhelming supports the Anti-GG crowd but the game companies know who buys their games and will continue to supply the games.

    Cite? Because I'm sure as hell not a GGer and I buy a hell of a lot of games.

  250. orwells spectre says

    Uh, where exactly is this being done? The only mention I've even seen of this is for a for-profit quickie vegas-style deal in Idaho, who avoided it after reincorporating as non-profit religious corporation.

    That would it be it. And it doesn't count, why? Because it was "for-profit"? And now that they are "non-profit", you are okay with them turning them down?

    From the article:

    The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage,

    They are ordained ministers, your judgement on them notwithstanding. If they claim it violates their religious principles, you and the other Blues get to decide they have to violate them anyway?

    Please decide whether you really mean you want a separation of church and state or not.

    As Clark mentioned, you now have situations where people can be thrown in jail or face financially ruinous fines for adhering to their religious beliefs because they won't take a picture, bake a cake or perform a *religious* ceremony.

    You think same-sex people have the right to marry?

    Great!

    I think people should be able to follow their conscience, particularly in religious matters.

    Somehow, and suddenly, the cry for justice went from telling the state and society and tradition to not interfere when it came allowing gay marriage, to using the power of the state to enforce the acceptance of it by everyone in society and despite their personal traditions.

    That, to Blue, is seen as progress.

  251. Sam says

    I appreciate the thought that went into this. Good, uncomfortable reading. Gonna take a look at what else you've written. Thanks

  252. Jacob Schmidt says

    Then I would not characterize you as a SJW. A SJW can't stand the idea of someone doing something without pontificating on the social impact of it.

    Interesting. Usually, I see No True Scotsmen assertions used defensively; rarely do I see it used offensively.

    First, both sides HAVE trolls. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to find threats of any kind, people fired over their stances in the issue and just textbook level assholes in BOTH sides.

    I generally find concentration more important than individual deeds: campaigns are worse than isolated instances. Screaming "both sides" might be (and, in this case, is) accurate, but it's a very trivial, not at all telling bit of accuracy. It's about as convincing as yelling "Hitler was a christian, too."

  253. CEOUNICOM says

    @Pickwick

    "entryism" is a questionable way of describing the situation. It has the sound of conspiracy about it, as does your mention of Alinsky.

    There does appear to be some actual coordination by some of the online RadFem characters involved in the whole GG fiasco. The fellows below do a deep dive into the role a number of academics played in ginning up the whole confrontation in social-media explicitly for the purpose of advancing a narrative of Patriarchical Oppression, etc. worth watching, in any case. Fun organizations like the "DERP Institute", and the Fembot Collective are discussed.

    See: "#GamerGate Research into Academia", by Sargon # YouTube (link below, can't tell if it is showing)

  254. Mike Cernovich says

    Someone was trash talking me in the comments, and that's fine. I'm a horrible person. Cool. Now my question.

    I was doxxed by Zoe Quinn's friend. Zoe Quinn widely retweeted it. That has been posted on Twitter. It's not even open to reasonable disagreement.

    Is doxx'ing OK when Zoe does it?

    Is it OK to doxx me because horrible person?

  255. Al says

    This isn't about platform planks or demands. It's about tribal hatred.

    Here's the thing about that. This is about one side of a tribe that want's to hold the rest back, literally. Other tribes started sorting this shit out forty years ago. One tribe, thanks to people like the gators, was pushed back to 1975 and has been stuck there ever since.

    No wonder women are pissed off.

  256. Desiderius says

    Ken in NJ,

    "Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both."

    It is gratifying to finally find a point made by an anti-GGer that is both true and non-trivial.

    As the guy with the real Popehat could likely tell you (and me), that important thing is the root of the whole mess.

    An authentic humility is lacking all-around.

  257. HamOnRye says

    @Arthur Kirkland

    Boy, are you going to take it hard when you find out the social conservatives not only don't believe their rhetoric about freedom and limited government but are instead a bunch of ardent authoritarian nanny-staters with a substantial helping of superstition and a corresponding disdain for science and reason.

    Some of this is true. However for the majority of us when we see innocent people such as Brad Wardell sacrificed on the altar of of SJW, because it demands perpetual victims, its not a difficult leap for the Grey tribe to support the Authoritarian over the Totalitarian.

  258. Eric Atkinson says

    Clark, you are on point as always. I bet that bunch of P Z Marionettes are self combusting about now. Good job!

  259. Desiderius says

    Wes,

    "Would you care to explain your secular argument against gay-marriage or perhaps provide a link to where you've explained it before? I'm genuinely curious as to what angle you're coming from."

    It is a relatively uncontested, if uncomfortable, fact that children raised to adulthood in an intact nuclear family enjoy better life outcomes than those denied that privilege. There are several viable arguments that follow from that premise. But you, and the legions who claim there is no such argument, likely already knew that. That claim is an assertion of dominance, not of truth.

  260. CEOUNICOM says

    Great essay, Clark. Added you to my RSS feed. Wonderful stuff.

    As an outside observer of this whole thing (i'm not much of a gamer, i don't do twitter, etc)… it seems to me to be less of a strict RED v BLUE (pun/reference intended) long-term culture-war event here, as much as it is a battle between a very amorphous and Team-less population (gamers), and the HOT PINK SJW morally-superior preening-activists who've intentionally inserted themselves among them in order to 'manufacture a controversy'.

    IOW, from my view, its a culture-war within the broadly 'blue-ish' population itself, between the extreme Rad-Fem activist types who are actively attempting to gin up a conflict, and a large swath of the gaming public who have reared up en-masse in rejection of this matronizing, hectoring assertion of moral authority.

    I honestly don't even think it has anything to do with "games" so much in the end. It seems more like an attempt by these self-described "SJWs"* to gain some kind of moral primacy in the social-media world. "Controlling the narrative" as it were. Very Frankfurt school type stuff.

    I completely discount all this hoo-haa about "death threats" etc. Being 'Generation X', i have a general view that, "unless something actually *happened* in the real world, its just a bunch of yapping on the internet". When Gamergate produces its first actual "crime" that isnt 'he said she said he said', maybe I'll revise that view. Until then, sticks, stones.

    I think there's a real serious trend where the academic left wants to infiltrate all sorts of online communities and redirect the discourse to subjects that empower themselves. See the previously linked video (long, admitttedly) which goes into great detail about some of the people involved in doing just that, and there are a number of direct links to people stirring the whole GG pot.

    Anyway, good stuff. Cheers.

  261. sorrykb says

    Oh hi discussion that never seems to end….

    I'm used to disagreeing with Clark. I usually disagree with Clark. Had tons of fun arguing in the "modern atheists have an incoherent world view" thread. (We did at least agree that Richard Dawkins is an ass, right?)

    But….

    Clark, is "gamergate" really what you want to pick as your example of the "culture war"? Seriously? A "scandal" founded in the furious lies of a jilted ex and fed by the rage of a small segment of gamers (Note: I'm a gamer.) flying the banner of "ethics in journalism" but really just railing against the idea that maybe, just maybe, it's not a given and a natural right that their worldview be the dominant one. They're freaking out and screaming "censorship" and "bullying" because people dare to criticize them in public.

    And then there's the death threats. And the rape threats. And the others who aren't making threats but whose vocabulary is apparently limited to "slut", "cunt", "bitch", and "whore". But it's all about ethics in journalism, of course.

    Is this really where you want to make your stand? Don't you think you can do better? I'd still disagree with you, and argue, and probably be snarky if you brought up this discussion in another context.
    But…. gamergate? Seriously? No.

  262. sorrykb says

    CEOUNICOM wrote:

    When Gamergate produces its first actual "crime" that isnt 'he said she said he said', maybe I'll revise that view.

    "I'm gonna wait until somebody actually gets killed before I dare to impinge on someone's freedeom by quietly saying 'hey..dude. Death threats really not cool'."

    P.S. Now that I know I'm not a gamer but in fact all these years have actually been a HOT PINK SJW morally-superior preening-activist, I guess I'll just have to find another hobby. 30+ years secretly embedded with the Real Gamers (TM), and now you've outed me. Curses.

  263. Mike Cernovich says

    Furthermore, is doxxing alone not a reason to be cautious?

    I was doxxed. By Zoe Quinn. Full on shot of where I live. The whole nine yards.

    Is that OK? Is it OK to doxx the "bad guys"? What objective standards should apply?

  264. Ken in NJ says

    Zoe Quinn's relationship with Nathan Grayson was explicitly confirmed by Stephen Totilo, who defended the latter by claiming it began only after the Quinn-centered article he wrote was published. That claim has subsequently been proven false by examining the pair's social media history.

    So what? I'm not sure why you even include this as one of your "points". I would ask for a citation for this social media history that proved Stephens claim false, except that it doesn't matter. Nathan Grayson never published a review of Zoe Quinn's game. Not before he fucked her, not while he was fucking her, and not after he fucked her.

    I mean, c'mon, DudeBro – " Quinn-centered article"? The article was a piece discussing Game Jam and her involvement in it. Nothing to do with her game. At all. That's the Big Scandal that has thousands of gamers screaming like howler monkeys and flinging poo for the past two months? Please. You can twist yourself up into an angry neckbearded pretzel trying to explain how that's such a Big Horrible Scandal, but that dog won't hunt

    So why do you bring it up at all? Are you ignorant of the fact that Nathan Grayson never reviewed ZQs game? Or are you cognizant of it but slip it in there anyway as if your mention is of that big fat nothingburger is somehow damning? Either way – ignorance or dishonesty – it doesn't say much for your credibility.

  265. Stephen says

    As to spunkgarglewee, it is the word of the glorious Yahtzee.

    All honour and praise to his merciful trilby be given.

  266. Ken in NJ says

    I was doxxed. By Zoe Quinn

    Oh, you poor man. I don;t mean to sound unsympathetic, but do you have a link to the post/tweet/whatever where she did this? Because it sounds just awful

  267. EAB says

    anti-GG hand waives it away by stating over and over again "well, these 3 females have been harassed more so it doesn't really matter how many people in the other side have been harassed".

    I am female, and I'm involved in politics and political activism (not SJW- or gaming-related). I've received a fair amount of personal harassment because of my politics. There's no doubt in my mind that it's used against me because I am a woman and because the people who engage in it hope that it will scare me into being quiet. Some examples:

    — if I'm having a conversation with one of my Twitter friends, some random person will drop in to call me names, or to tell me how I'll burn in hell or how I'm personally ruining America. This week it was "lying k*ke whore bitch", which is pretty much par for the course.
    — random strangers in the parking lot will see the bumper sticker on my car and stop to yell at me about it. It's pretty scary when I'm loading my groceries and some big guy walks up to shake his finger in my face. (Oddly, this never happens to my husband, even though he has the same bumper sticker.)
    — if I'm wearing a political t-shirt, strangers feel likewise entitled to stop me and tell me how much they hate my t-shirt and how I should be ashamed of myself for believing in [my cause].
    — people will post awful pictures to Facebook and tag me in them so they show in my profile
    — I receive Facebook messages and emails from strangers to the effect of "Do your neighbors on [my street] know what a terrible person you are?" and "What will [my children's names] think when they grow up and learn what their mother believes?"

    Something like that happens at least every couple of weeks, more often during peak-politics times. None of them are that big a deal individually, though the face-to-face encounters can be upsetting, but it gets pretty annoying in the aggregate. I don't live in fear, and I've never received an actual death threat, but I do accept that I might be subject to minor violence like having my house vandalized or getting shoved by one of the parking-lot dudes. I actually feel lucky that I don't get more of it, because I know it could be a lot worse — at least I don't have an honest-to-god stalker or anything, like some women I know.

    None of that happens because I'm out poking bears with sticks. My public persona is more mild-mannered-suburban-mom than rabid-feminist, and I work hard to always be polite and respectful, but I get the crap anyway. Lest you think it's my politics, I've seen it happen to women on the opposite side of my issue too. My male activist and politico friends don't experience anything similar (except the ones involved in LGBT activism).

    Yes, individual men sometimes get similar harassment in specific situations. It's just as wrong at the individual level then. But it's not a systemic problem that happens to *every* man who pontificates on the internet, the way it's pervasive for women who engage in public discourse. For men, it's an exceptional bad situation that shouldn't be tolerated. For us, it's "eh, that's the price of doing business, get a thicker skin."

    That's the nerve GamerGate has struck. To me, and to the many many other women who've experienced similar behavior, it looks exactly a scaled-up version of what happens to us all the time for committing the sovereign crime of having opinions in public. I have absolutely zero doubt that if 4Chan suddenly decided to care about my issue, I'd be on the receiving end of the same howling mob. I'm sure they'd have a whole bunch of rationalizations, just like the parking-lot dudes have rationalizations too. But that's not really what it's about. Harassment of women really is a legitimate problem, and GG looks and smells a little too much like it for a lot of us to get mired down in the "because [reasons]" of it all.

  268. Mike Cernovich says

    Oh, you poor man. I don;t mean to sound unsympathetic, but do you have a link to the post,tweet,whatever where she did this? Because it sounds just awful

    Smug and dismissive, as expected.

    Zero intellectual integrity.

  269. Mike Cernovich says

    So… Mike Cernovich… tell us what you really think…

    Yep. Pure evil. Conceded.

    Does that excuse the doxx? Is it OK to threaten me?

    What objective standards should apply?

  270. Mike Cernovich says

    FYI, Zoe Quinn said that cheating on someone and then having sex with that person is rape.

    So….Yeah, I said some stupid stuff (some makes sense in context, some was just trolling, and some…just wow).

    But by her own definition Zoe Quinn is a rapist.

    And she doxxed me.

    Now what?

  271. Grifter says

    @Mike Cernovich:

    Since you are explicitly making the claim here, can you link to what you're talking about?

    Did she post your home address?

  272. Mike Cernovich says

    Grifter, don't play games. It's all over the Internet. Picture of my home, address, everything.

    Now confront the issue. Zoe Quinn doxxed me. Are you going to speak out, redefine doxx so it doesn't apply to me (but so that it applies to everyone else), or are you going to ignore it?

    It's a gut check time for you and your intellectual integrity.

  273. sorrykb says

    No, Mike C., it's not's OK to dox people. It's not OK to make death threats.
    And you… Definitely not OK. "Some stupid stuff"? You have some sick standards if that counts as mere "stupid stuff". It's not like that tweet was a one-off.
    As gamergate's supposed champion of anti-bullying, you have zero credibility.

    And still, no, it's not OK to threaten you with physical harm.

  274. orwells spectre says

    The following is an example of either the willing or ingrained ideological blindness that is both annoying to those of GG, and to the larger body politic which does not drink Blue Kool-Aid:

    Clark, is "gamergate" really what you want to pick as your example of the "culture war"? Seriously?

    I believe he made very explicit the point that it was merely an example of a larger issue plaguing our society. Not sure why that is a problem, particularly when the issue is the continue infiltration and devouring of various cultures and institutions to satisfy the angry SJW gods.

    For example, the coordination of stories video game journalists engaged in directly mirrors similar things done by mainstream journalists covering politics. They are practices springing from the same poison tree.

    Now, you are either not bright enough to see that (which I don't believe) or you are refusing to see it for reasons I will leave you to ponder.

    A "scandal" founded in the furious lies of a jilted ex and fed by the rage of a small segment of gamers (Note: I'm a gamer.)

    The ability to use "scandal" in quotes disappeared when evidence emerged that gaming "journalists" were coordinating their message to all align with the same narrative. See, that's how you use quotes.

    flying the banner of "ethics in journalism" but really just railing against the idea that maybe, just maybe, it's not a given and a natural right that their worldview be the dominant one.

    Here we have admission that the stated goal of the SJW's was to overthrow the 'dominant' view of the culture/organization and replace it with a more socially and politically palatable one. I think the gamers' overriding worldview was that wanted to be left alone to, you know, play and discuss games without being lectured at continually by the high priests of political correctness. Priests who often lies about their alleged sins.

    They're freaking out and screaming "censorship" and "bullying" because people dare to criticize them in public.

    I think when entire message boards, blog posts and other methods of free speech (let's remember some of those venue specifically espoused free speech principles) are flushed down the memory hole, the censorship claim has a wee bit o' legitimacy, doncha' think?

    Of course you don't. There is legitimate free speech, and then there is everything you don't like.

    As for bullying, being repeatedly called names like sexist, racist, homophobic, geeks, creeps, etc, would seem to qualify, as would constantly being told what to do, ie, create more 'inclusive content'.

    You want inclusive content? MAKE IT! SUPPORT IT!

    Compared to many, I guess I am NOT a gamer in the truest sense, but I know bullshit when I see it.

  275. Castaigne says

    @Orwells Spectre:

    That would it be it. And it doesn't count, why? Because it was "for-profit"

    Yup. For profit is a business, not a church. For profit is capitalism, a church is religious socialism.

    Because it was "for-profit"? And now that they are "non-profit", you are okay with them turning them down?

    Yup. They're now incorporating as an actual church.

    They are ordained ministers, your judgement on them notwithstanding.

    Yes, they are ordained ministers…from a paper mill ordination. Send the same group $25 and YOU TOO can be an ordained minister! They didn't go seminary or attain theology degrees, they just got the paper mill ordinations so they could open up their Vegas "marriage" shop.

    If they claim it violates their religious principles, you and the other Blues get to decide they have to violate them anyway?

    It violates the religious principles of Christian Identity member to serve black people, yet, if they run a shop, they have to serve them. It's the law.

    A church, not being a business, does not have to operate under the same rules.

    Please decide whether you really mean you want a separation of church and state or not.

    Absolutely, I do. And since they weren't a church, but a business, I see no problem with the imposition of the standard rules of business as to who you can and cannot discriminate against. Now that they're religiously incorporated as a church, the rules don't apply…just like Christian Identity churches.

    It's very simple.

    you now have situations where people can be thrown in jail or face financially ruinous fines for adhering to their religious beliefs because they won't take a picture, bake a cake or perform a *religious* ceremony.

    If you're running a business, that's correct. If you want to remove the restrictions on the whole "freedom of association" thing, that's fine – get the various civil rights acts and the related caselaw repealed and reversed, and I'll be all for it. Religious people will then be able to discriminate in their business on the basis of sexual orientation. And age. And gender. And veteran status. And race. And religion. And all of the other 'protected statuses'. If you get this done, I'm all for it, since it will be legal.

    But to be fair, you should also allow government to do the same, if we're going to let the businesses do it.

    I think people should be able to follow their conscience, particularly in religious matters.

    That's great!
    BTW, I'm a Catholic. I have represented here, and elsewhere, that Protestants are heretics and that they need to be converted to Catholicism or executed for their heresy. I assume you have no problem with me following my conscience, as dictated by God.

    That, to Blue, is seen as progress

    You mistake me; I'm not interested in progress. I'm interested in seeing the rules applied evenly.
    If you want to allow religious people discriminate against sexual orientation in their for-profit businesses, fine. I'll join with you…so long as you allow any people to discriminate against anyone for any reason in their for-profit business. And government to do the same as well, since the purpose of government is business.

    If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

    Do we have a deal?

    BTW, you should know that said Idaho "ministers" were never threatened with arrest and that the ADL's narrative was a lie. Never trust the ADL. They lie often.

    =====
    @Mike Cernovich:

    Is doxx'ing OK when Zoe does it?
    Is it OK to doxx me because horrible person?

    I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the questions go:
    1) Is the doxxing legal to do? Yes.
    2) If legal, then OK to do for any reason whatsoever.

    You're a lawyer; you should know that if it's legal, it's legit.

  276. sorrykb says

    Orwells Spectre wrote:

    Here we have admission that the stated goal of the SJW's was to overthrow the 'dominant' view of the culture/organization and replace it with a more socially and politically palatable one.

    Go back and read again what I wrote.

    Or, here, I'll bold some of it to help:

    flying the banner of "ethics in journalism" but really just railing against the idea that maybe, just maybe, it's not a given and a natural right that their worldview be the dominant one.

  277. Grifter says

    @Mike Cernovich:

    Given that I haven't taken a position on it whatsoever, your accusations are both baseless and idiotic, given that all I did was ask you a question about your own claims. It is not a "gut check" for me. If you were doxxed, that's bad. Period. It doesn't matter who it is. It's still worth knowing whether you were, or were not–particularly since, in this instance, you are the claimed injured party and you are posting here.

    That said: You appear to be an asshole. That doesn't excuse doxxing in any way, shape or form, but it's nonetheless good to know. I was generally on principle against the doxxing of Violentacrez on privacy grounds despite the fact that he was an asshole, and I am likewise against your own doxxing if it occurred.

    That also said:

    "It's all over the internet", you say?

    https://www.google.com/search?q=mike+cernovich&oq=mike+cernovich&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2629j1j7&client=ubuntu-browser&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=mike+cernovich+dox

    The first few links don't show me any doxxing–in fact several of them call shenanigans on you, which I searched before I made my comment. Results may vary given the nature of google's cookies. I'm sorry that I expected a modicum of intellectual honesty from you and a willingness to back up your claims. I won't make that mistake again. I am not, however, willing to do a bunch of research on a claim you made in order to bolster your claim for you. The thing about having a discussion is, that it's idiotic to expect everyone to do your work for you. That is, if other readers will forgive the glibness, Communism.

    If you were really doxxed, that's bad. If you're making up a new definition of doxxing, you're an idiot–though your subsequent claim seems to indicate you are using the standard usage. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were the victim of doxxing, despite the only evidence I have being your assertions, and assertions to the contrary. As such, that is bad.

    In the future, though? You might want to consider having a modicum of intellectual integrity, particularly when responding to simple questions of clarification and support–even more particularly when they aren't, as another commenter was, in any way sarcastic questions of clarification and support. I did want to know, and I didn't know who you were before today. I most certainly do now. And while doxxing is bad, I now know you're in intellectually bankrupt bully willing to bandy about claims based on nothing, and willing to attempt to make bellicose claims about other people about whom you have no basis to. This has no bearing on whether other people's behavior was acceptable, but I will judge future statements accordingly. You knew nothing about my position on anything, and I asked a relatively simple question–your refusal to answer was couched only in terms of it being "everywhere" when it demonstrably isn't, and then you felt the need to accuse me of things you couldn't possibly support. This appears to be because you are a jackass. I suppose it's good to know that someone's a jackass, so thank you.

    @Ken (and Grandy. And Clark. And Patrick. And the bodhisattva via Angus):

    I hope I have not disappointed you, and I apologize if I have. I usually try not to reach this level of annoyance. On this occasion, I failed.

  278. Ken in NJ says

    Smug and dismissive, as expected.

    Zero intellectual integrity.

    So then, you don't have a link. Why didn't you just say so?

  279. Castaigne says

    @Mike Cernovich:

    Yep. Pure evil. Conceded. Does that excuse the doxx? Is it OK to threaten me?

    Does that excuse doxxing, the publication of information that any broheim who knows how to google properly can get and put out there?

    I'm sorry, I really don't see the issue with doxxing. If you own a house, I can get your name, number, home address, DOB, SSN, and tax history by doing a quick jaunt in the public records. Or I can pay $25-30 to get same pulled by a private firm if I'm out of state. There's nothing in doxxed information that isn't on the internet or already publicly available IRL. I just…don't get it. You're on the internet; there's no expectation of privacy here and anything available publicly or to private investigation is just something that can be gathered at any moment. PIs are cheap for data work.

    So….Yeah, I said some stupid stuff (some makes sense in context, some was just trolling, and some…just wow).

    Stupid stuff? C'mon. I quote:
    "Why don't you do the world a favor, man up, and kill yourself? Fucking coward."
    "I had never heard of "gaming media" until recently. Jesus Christ, guys, put down the fucking video games and stop reading retarded sites."
    "A woman over 40 is indistinguishable from a tranny."
    "Everyone has the urge to murder. Few people are moral. Non-psyhos just have better impulse control."

    Between this and the D'stort D'Newza crap and your support for War Machine – bitch had it comin', right? – you would think that a better term than 'stupid' would apply. Sayin' stupid shit applies for a once-off; doing it over a period of time is deliberate. I don't buy the trolling crap; you constantly talk about how you're smarter than these other saps and smart people know not to use the 'social experiment' excuse.

  280. Ken in NJ says

    Grifter, don't play games. It's all over the Internet.

    So that's twice you've been asked to back up your very serious accusations, and twice you've refused to do do. Why is that?

  281. Ken in NJ says

    Yeah, I said some stupid stuff

    Oh, I don't know – I'm sure that there are some people who don't think fat shaming, slut shaming, rape jokes, rape apologism, and that PUA schtick is "stupid". Hell, I'd bet there are several who have posted right here in this thread. No worries, you'll be welcome here, dudebro

  282. Kevin says

    Gosh, it's a good thing Ken is planning a GamerGate post of his own for Monday. Otherwise this issue might go woefully unaddressed here in the Popehat comments section.

  283. sorrykb says

    @Mike Cernovich:
    When you say that Zoe Quinn "doxxed" you, are you referring to her linking on Twitter to a blog post (not by Zoe) that — in the course of pointing out how generally awful you are — also referenced your listing on Avvo.com? The same listing that poor misguided potential clients might use to find you?

  284. Guesting says

    @EAB

    I'm fairly sure you didn't read my whole comment so I please go read it again and then keep reading this one.

    Done? good, I hope you actually understood what I meant rather than think that I'm somehow defending men and saying "Well men are being harassed too so women shouldn't complain" Never did i say or implied that. It is also even more comical because the people that have been harassed the most on the GG side had been females and a homosexual reporter (to anyone who wants to come in and yell how much of a horrible person Milo is,save it. I'm not discussing his personal opinions).

    In case it is still not clear, I merely stated that anti-GG not only has trolls doing harassment and threats but also are coming from "journalist" employed by powerful publications (look at Sam Biddle from Gawker who, by the way, is backpedaling from his pro-bullying tweet). And that we shouldn't label whole movements based on what a small portion of people did while using the hashtag (more below)

    Also, your gender doesn't really matter in this discussion. First because I never mentioned gender in my comment. Second, as i said above, GG has plenty of females that have also been doxxed and harassed. Accused of "internalized misogyny" and trying to be "cool" with guys just to score "cool points". That is without going to what these "SWJ" have been calling minorities that disagree with them (myself being a minority in this country)… despicable (this is also what I meant by hand waiving claims and opinions from the GG side).

    4chan and now 8chan might be a perfect place for assholes. Anonymity does that to people but that doesn't mean everyone that goes there is out to get you. May I remind you that some in that community have actually tracked criminals and pedophiles and turned the information to authorities. With that said, I'm fairly irritated that these "progressives" are quick to label people by the actions of few but never mention and sometimes not even acknowledge any of the good deeds they did.

    Repeating myself here, did the 3 ladies in the anti-GG side unfortunate enough to receive threats ever denounced Gawker and Sam Biddle for his pro-bullying comments? not that I noticed. Did they acknowledge that GG actually found out the identity of the Brazilian blogger that sent one of the threats? not that I noticed.

    Both sides have assholes that derail important conversations to be have but anti-GG is genuinely intellectually dishonest and/or plain hypocrites and for them to be claiming the moral high ground without actually making any effort of acknowledging any misdeeds from their side and good deed from GG side is disgusting(contrary to popular belief a good chunk of GG denounces threats but again… is not acknowledge so I do not blame people who just go by word of mouth or word from these "journalist"). I'm not taking sides in this because is kind of a nightmare to deal withl. However, if researched well,anti-GG worst enemy is itself. Anyone who does their share amount of digging can find plenty of dirt from these "progressive" folks. They are basically the main source of support for GG.

    So, in conclusion(to repeat myself yet again)…… if we are going to label GG as misogynist then lets label anti-GG as well. Not only that, with that brilliant logic lets all denounce movements just because a small portion of them are opportunistic assholes (again, Ferguson looters).

    Also, I'm sorry you're target from threats. While I never had to deal with them, I have dealt with bullying since I'm not only a minority in this country but I'm also a minority among minorities so I understand what is to deal with people who think you're either weird, wrong or just not at their "level".

    Lastly, sorry if this comment is not completely coherent… 10 pm here and with a 9 hour work shift that also involves ~1:20 hour of dealing with traffic each way really leaves anyone with a tired brain. Going to sleep now.

  285. Jon H says

    @Clark: " I personally have a secular argument against it, which I don't think is laughable."

    Yes, you probably do, but I'm not sure about your ability to think.

  286. Jon H says

    @Guesting: "a good chunk of GG denounces threats"

    Unfortunately, a lot of the time that happens in the form "Threats are inexcusable but [Quinn totally had it coming for sleeping with those guys to get good reviews]." etc. The disclaimer is used as just an excuse to repeat the oft-debunked charges.

  287. Jon H says

    @Desiderius: "It is a relatively uncontested, if uncomfortable, fact that children raised to adulthood in an intact nuclear family enjoy better life outcomes than those denied that privilege. "

    This is not an argument against same-sex marriage, because there's no good evidence that what is required isn't simply the time and attention of two parental figures, rather than a man and woman as father and mother.

  288. Mike Cernovich says

    I'm sorry, I really don't see the issue with doxxing. If you own a house, I can get your name, number, home address, DOB, SSN, and tax history by doing a quick jaunt in the public records. Or I can pay $25-30 to get same pulled by a private firm if I'm out of state. There's nothing in doxxed information that isn't on the internet or already publicly available IRL

    By your definition, no one who is anti-GamerGate has ever been doxxed.

    Will you stand by that link of thinking when it's applied to your site and correct the record whenever someone claims a person has been doxxed?

  289. anonymous says

    > With respect to the threats and harassment they are getting, yes, I'm absolutely not caring about any wrongdoing on their part. Much like murdering a drug dealer is still murder. Unless you can come up with some specific wrongdoing that they are guilty of that somehow makes the rape and death threats they've been getting OK? Hey, I'm all ears – because other than a small handful of extraordinarily unlikely hypotheticals, I'm just not seeing it

    and

    > And then there's the death threats. And the rape threats. And the others who aren't making threats but whose vocabulary is apparently limited to "slut", "cunt", "bitch", and "whore".

    Why are we talking about what good people said about Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, etc? (Of course Malkin also gets racial slurs.)

  290. Castaigne says

    @Mike Cernovich:

    By your definition, no one who is anti-GamerGate has ever been doxxed.

    Uh, ok. And?

    Will you stand by that link of thinking when it's applied to your site

    I don't have a site, but yes, I stand by the definition I gave. Otherwise I wouldn't have given it.

    and correct the record whenever someone claims a person has been doxxed?

    Uh, sure? If someone wants my opinion, then they had best be prepared for my honesty.
    I mean, look at your own example of 'doxxing'. A picture of your workplace from Google frickin' Earth is a 'doxxing'? When you say dox, I expect to see some tax returns up there, maybe even a bank statement or two or some shit. You can't do shit with Google Earth. Maybe if some death threats had accompanied it, I might take it seriously, but you're a self-professed muscle-man, so it's not possible for you to fear that shit. Or anything.

  291. Mike Cernovich says

    Stupid stuff? C'mon. I quote

    You do know Gawker writers (anti-GamerGate) have said stuff as bad or worse than I have?

    And Chris Kluwe…Go read his Twitter. Go read that CBS article discussing what he may or may not have known about some very serious stuff.

    Sorry, buddy, but you can't ride a high horse. You read Gawker sites and those people are no better or worse than I am, and you give them page views and thus advertising dollars.

    Save your moralizing for church.

    If you have intellectual arguments, I'm all ears. So far….I haven't heard anything other than, "Mike's a bad guy."

    OK, God?

  292. anonymous says

    > Unfortunately, a lot of the time that happens in the form "Threats are inexcusable but

    She's Sarah Palin, or one of her kids, or Michelle Malkin, Mia Love, or any conservative woman so it's okay, right? Heck – it's practically an obligation.

  293. anonymous says

    > And government to do the same as well, since the purpose of government is business.

    Really? I'm pretty sure that I can refuse to do business with Ford. How do I refuse to do business with a govt?

    Ford can't demand money from me or throw me in jail for violating its rules. What govt works that way?

  294. says

    "Ironically, while Irish Catholics supported King James en masse, the Papal States had joined the League of Augsburg. Pope Innocent XI had lent William of Orange 150,000 Scudi for war purposes through his family's bank before his death in 1689."

    Man this article is another example of how Catholics can be so delusion some times. Really, grow up, stop seeing the world in black and white, or rather, blue and red. Instead see the world for what it is, a violent place full of sin, where one side gets the better of another and uses it.

  295. says

    Oh, also surprisingly came upon,
    "Pope Adrian called the Irish a "rude and barbarous" nation. Thus, the Norman invasion of Ireland began in 1169 with the backing of the Papacy. Pope Alexander III, who was Pope at the time of the invasion, ratified the Laudabiliter and gave Henry dominion over Ireland. He likewise called the Irish a "barbarous nation" with "filthy practises""
    NOW, if you were Protestant, you could dismiss this, but since the Pope is such an important figure… a Holy one in fact, you cannot. If your own Holy Historical Popes call the Irish a pathetic people, then it must be true. Oliver Cromwell does not have to be a Holy man with God's perfect authority in my books, all he is too me is an interesting historical figure… Go figure.

  296. Deathpony says

    What on earth happened?

    It's like any discussion about GG becomes instantly subsumed into the greater GG blancmangeosphere.

    Which kind of proves part of Clark's point I guess.

  297. Max says

    @Mike Cernovich
    By definition us SJW's feel that saying 'GGers are awful people' is a lapse that we feel guilty about (because we know it actually isn't true – many we would see as misguided). 'Your' side says things savage things about 'fat' people or 'trannies' and frankly that is a lot worse, They are groups that just are, not hold an opinion. That is bullying. That is true nastiness.

    Gawker has some pretty good sites on it, which I read. and I'm so glad that their readership (including Kotaku) has gone up so much since the GG boycott started. Thanks for the publicity, audience and increased advertising you have just given all of Gawker. Can you slag off Jezebel by name? You frothing nasty things about them will get people over there to see whats up, and they will stay for the witty and entertaining articles.

    How is your own business going after you jumped on this bandwagon to drum up new custom btw? Many people buying your anti-bullying services?

    As to 'intellectual' arguments:

    All of the 'corruption' charges made by GGers have been shown to be incorrect, irrelevant or petty. All of them, despite the usual GGer tactic of once one charge has been shown to be wrong, then ignoring it and moving on to something more obscure in a never ending list. Usually those pushing the arguments know the first one they push has been substantially discredited but make it anyway. Usually the first one they push is usually about slagging off a woman for her sex life.

    There has been some isolated cases of doxxing, harassment and death threats made by the SJW, Cultural Marxist, Feminist side I belong to. Those few are shameful and disgusting and I personally condemn them utterly. However, the level of horror heaped on GamerGate's victims is substantially, excessively higher, both in terms of quantity and intensity. For all that 8chan have been calling for a halt (based on the propaganda losses),Some GG activists have been tracking down those who go ahead and make threats anyway, but because they know the flood of hate and savagery is losing them this war.

    My side feel particularly angry about the accusation of false flag operations by the GGers. It feels a little like the 'Stop hitting yourself' of the bully jock attacking the nerd in the lockerroom (you would know about that Mike). We are also not pleased by the same bully jocks persuading some geeks that girls are mean, and fat people are funny, and trannies weird and getting them to join their gang because some people said something mean about their fave video game.

    BTW Mike, since people linked to your professional profile on Avvo, posted a picture of your house on Twitter (which was a foul move actually) and said mean things about you, have you felt any sympathy for the 'professional victim' Anita Sarkeesian who gets regular and terrifying death and rape threats at her private address, to the extent she had to move? Can you condemn that?

  298. Max says

    @Deathpony
    It proves Clark's point that he wrote an article about an incredibly contentious topic that is contested throughout the internet and then people start arguing about it?

    Does it prove Clark's point when the sun rises, light comes on when he flicks a switch or a bear uses some woods for a toilet?

  299. says

    I just wanted to say I really enjoyed this article. Obviously I don't agree with everything, as no one should, but it was a very entertaining and rather brutal look a struggle that has been going on for a while now. Like you Clark I don't really ascribe to team red or blue, to my detriment, so I have had of course the fun experience of watching team red and blue flip-flop positions more time then I can count on the same isues. Sorry for the typos, your comments section is too mighty for my phone to handle.

  300. Deathpony says

    @Max

    No, not the fact that they argue about it. The fact that the argument becomes immediately ridiculously heated and people respond with all guns blazing to nothing at all, kind of like they were spoiling for this fight and it materialised before them.

    Like for example the Cernovich creature going full bore on an innocuous request for information from someone probably predisposed to be sympathetic, or you for example here.

  301. Mike Cernovich says

    Thanks for the publicity, audience and increased advertising you have just given all of Gawker

    You know they just lost a bunch of ads, yeah?

    And they apologized – something Gawker does not do.

    And their EIC had a meltdown and blasted a former advertiser – which is a huge no-no in the ad world as it sends a message that Gawker will destroy a brand that spurns it.

    Yea, you are winning alright! Keep supporting bullies like Sam Biddle and other people who joke and make fun of neuroatypicals.

    Tough guys!

  302. Harald K says

    I post this after umpteen comments and it's probably never going to be read, but,

    "An outright lie created by a vindictive ex."

    People who say this, accidentally reveal that they didn't read the zoe post. Perhaps for understandable reasons, perhaps they believed Zoe when she indicated it was nothing but a gross invasion of her privacy. But if they didn't, and they looked, they would have seen this:

    Nowhere does the boyfriend accuse Zoe of trading sex for reviews. He even goes to the point of defending her employment (by a boss, who she was unfaithful with right before getting employed), saying she probably would have gotten that job anyway, she really is good at designing narratives ("the only problem is that she never stops doing it.")

    I don't usually think of myself as a feminist. But lately, I've had to defend points I thought were common ground between feminists and all sane people. Such as: "It is wrong to sleep with people you are in a position to fire or hire, or make or break their careers. This creates a hostile, sexualized work environment, and is wrong even if you think it doesn't affect your decisions."

    Zoe Quinn did not get a review for having sex with Nathan Grayson. That's technically true, but it's also the absolute best spin you can put on it. She had every reason to expect that the relationship would be good for publicity. Grayson did something even worse, because he had the power in the relationship – the power to make or break Zoe's game by giving it publicity or not. Even if he didn't intend to, he ought to have understood that you simply do not sleep with people whose career trajectory depends on you.

    And this is completely the same with Joshua Boggs, her boss which she also admitted (to the boyfriend) to have had an affair with. If you're OK with bosses sleeping with employees willy nilly, you might as well bring back droit du seigneur and be done with it.

  303. sinij says

    You want inclusive content? MAKE IT! SUPPORT IT!

    There is no market for it, so it can be only forced/legislated/shamed on the audience. Just like there is no market for transgendered hobbits, or visible minority in a wheelchair vampires, or representative and average proportionate superheroes, or starving orc children.

    Why? Because it breaks immersion.

    Put it this way, when I am at the bar Friday night, enjoying beers, I don't care to have it decorated with power point slides, flow charts, balance sheets, and be forced to wear suit and tie to get in. I am at the bar to escape all these things.

  304. Anonymous says

    1) "By definition us SJW's feel that saying 'GGers are awful people' is a lapse that we feel guilty about (because we know it actually isn't true – many we would see as misguided). 'Your' side [are awful people]" – I'll leave it to you to find out the problem with that statement.
    1.1) SJWs are awful people by definition. The term does not mean "someone believing in social justice", that's how most people would describe themselves nowadays. It means "hypocritical antagonistic asshole", a particular brand thereof. It amuses me that someone would want to call himself with the term, but when you do – accept the baggage.
    1.2) The general problem of "your side" is that you refuse to interact with people disagreeing with you. We've all been proven wrong on all accounts, and we're awful people who do nasty things, and Gawker is a great site who gets new advertisers – all according to sources from your echo chamber. It may literally require bringing it down for you to notice something is wrong. But hey, we're trying.

    2) An article centered on Zoe, sympathetic to Zoe, presenting Zoe's side of the story, extensively quoting Zoe and essentially promoting Zoe's new business endeavor written by a person sleeping (or "in a close personal relationship", if you insist they weren't lovers yet – because, frankly, it doesn't change much indeed) with Zoe is okay because it's not a review?
    2.1) Not like people were saying it was a review or had anything to do with her game in the first place. I mean, I'm sure a few were, either out of ignorance of hastiness, but there's a name for cherry-picking such people and words, proving them wrong and pretending you've validated your position and all the problems went away: "strawman argument".
    2.2) Of course Nathan's breach of ethics wasn't much of a scandal. Yet. None of what's happening would happen if people responsible owned up to their crap and gave people reason to believe it won't happen again. (Hint: The Escapist) Instead, they keep attacking everyone who criticizes them, using vile and disgusting methods, rolling out increasingly stronger guns – then wonder why the situation has blown out of their control. You don't want to admit any of your numerous faults – and we don't like to lose. Something will have to give.

  305. says

    @Harald K:

    I post this after umpteen comments and it's probably never going to be read, but,

    I read it. Good comments; I agree with it all.

  306. says

    @sinji:

    You want inclusive content? MAKE IT! SUPPORT IT!

    There is no market for it, so it can be only forced/legislated/shamed on the audience.

    I suggest, more generally, that the Blue Team is not particularly good at building things. They are much better at taking them over.

    Cory Doctorow, a left winger verging on communist, admitted as much in his novel "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom". It deals w a "post-scarcity" world where the leftists basically just take over everything the capitalists have built through non-violent squatting, and run it according to their own whims. They build precious little.

  307. Kim Karomi says

    Clark,
    What an amazing post! This is a feat of great skill and imagination – an absolutely faithful simulation of the paranoid and echolalic drivelling of the culture war conspiracist. How epically Dargerian in scope and Swiftian in pitch.

    Just bloody amazing.

  308. says

    I am utterly amazed at how much of #GamerGate is misunderstood. It is NOT just about Zoe Quinn's sex life. Her sex life plays only on the marginal fringes. She may have slept with people who had written positive reviews, etc. If Zoe was sleeping around with people outside the gaming industry, no one would care. That blog post would have never seen the light of day outside of their mutual acquaintances. To many Gamers, though, that blog was the smoking gun. Proof that the relationships between developers, producers and journalists was way too cozy. It's not that this has NEVER come up before, it has. This time there was proof. (If you have the time, you should read the screen shots. She alludes to avoiding telling Nathan she's back with her boyfriend because he might screw up her chances at a convention. She actively stops any text conversations when she gets the idea that these conversations could be made public and make her look like the pathological liar she is. Yes, Zoe Quinn is a pathological liar.) It was proof, and the gamers ran with it. But there was more proof not related to sex. See, some of those game journalists were financially supporting the developers they were reviewing. And let's not forget that it turns out they have their own version of Journolist, where emails were revealed showing that they got together and agreed on their storyline, while bashing their audience, and browbeating anyone who didn't agree with them, including other journos. Turns out, there is a massive amount of unethical behavior, but rather than fess up and make it better, the response from games journalism was to attack their audience. Way to make a problem not go away.

    As far as death threats, the only time I've seen the authorities brought in was in the case of Anita Sarkeesian's speech. None of the other death threats that were alluded to ever involved authorities. They involved twitter. If you get a serious death threat, one that scares you out of your house, is your first instinct to post it on twitter? Let's be serious here. Posting it on twitter is for one reason only: attention. Something else Ms. Quinn is famous for needing and garnering.

    The funny thing about all this is, so many people on the side of GG recognize that there is a need for more women in gaming. As long as they can produce content that people want to play, the world is wide open. As a matter of fact, when it comes to storyline development, there's quite a few females hanging around. But you don't get more women in gaming by making their mouthpiece Anita Sarkeesian, who doesn't even like video games (by her own admission), and doesn't really play video games (by her own admission). She uses walk throughs that are mostly done by other people, and rather than reviewing the actual game and it's content and game play, the only thing she manages to do is screech about the mistreatment of women. Going as far as to tar and feather Super Mario Bros because you have to save the princess. What? You want more women in games, then find women game developers and give them a shot. All the game reviews, SJW screeds, and Youtube vidoes aren't going to do it. Sure, you'll get your face recognized and you'll get to do speeches where you decry misogynist games, but you wont' change the playing field.

    If getting women into gaming was truly the goal, the FYC campaign would have been widely promoted by these women. Instead it was panned, the website crashed, some of the creators doxxed and yet another opportunity was passed by. So please stop telling me that people like Anita and Zoe have a noble cause. No, they don't. They have a cause to make themselves famous. Nothing more. They aren't truly concerned with any other women breaking into the field as long as they get their payday.

  309. says

    @Kim Karomi:

    Clark,
    What an amazing post! This is a feat of great skill and imagination – an absolutely faithful simulation of the paranoid and echolalic drivelling of the culture war conspiracist.

    I've had many people suggest in the comments that my post was a conspiratorial view of things.

    …which I find very odd, as I don't posit (and, indeed, reject) a conspiratorial worldview. I don't see a single conspiracy anywhere this ball of wax. I merely suggest that evolution makes us into game players, game players are good at forming cultural alliances, and cultural alliances have formed. It's all emergent; not at all orchestrated.

  310. says

    @Max:

    @Deathpony
    It proves Clark's point that he wrote an article about an incredibly contentious topic that is contested throughout the internet and then people start arguing about it?

    I suggest that what @Deathpony might have meant is that I wrote a birds-eye-view essay on the culture wars BEHIND GamerGate, and 90% of the people writing comments can't appreciate that for what it is, and immediately try to drag the battle right back onto the prepared killing ground…and THAT proves my point that this is part of a bigger culture war.

  311. says

    Jon H:

    @Clark: " I personally have a secular argument against [ same sex marriage ], which I don't think is laughable."

    Yes, you probably do, but I'm not sure about your ability to think.

    Witness, ladies and gentleman, the legendary tolerance and open mindedness of Team Blue.

  312. says

    @Kevin:

    Gosh, it's a good thing Ken is planning a GamerGate post of his own for Monday. Otherwise this issue might go woefully unaddressed here in the Popehat comments section.

    Snort!

  313. Ken says

    The length and intensity of these comments support Clark's overall thesis that Gamergate is just one (unexpected and interesting) skirmish of a much larger culture war. Who is right and who is wrong is not nearly as interesting in this instance as the fight itself. Bravo Clark.

  314. Mich says

    I miss the days when this blog wasn't filled with fail, arrogant self-aggrandizing wargarbl, and nonsense masquerading as genuine thought. And Clark, using the Daily-Fail-Fucking-MAIL to back up your argument? Seriously?? And you're probably sitting there wondering why people are questioning you left right and center.

  315. says

    @Mich:

    fail, arrogant self-aggrandizing wargarbl, and nonsense masquerading as genuine thought.

    Thank your for your crisply intelligent and analytical refutation of my argument in this post. I'll think deeply on the points you raised and consider either heavily revising the essay or perhaps retracting the post in toto.

  316. Paul Moloney says

    "It's not about women, it's about JOURNALISTIC ETHICS!" cry Goobergaters, as they then proceed to spend paragraphs talking about only women, most of whom aren't journalists.

    P.

  317. says

    @Paul Moloney:

    cry Goobergaters

    Thanks for bringing your incisive commentary to the blog, Paul…and please make sure to take it with you when you leave.

  318. says

    Paul is correct. Gamergaters do in fact claim "journalistic ethics" and then spend plenty of time talking about things that aren't journalistic ethics (I make no value judgement about this). They're so famous for it Clickhole made note of it.

    I'm no fan of "let's call someone or something a name that is part of their real name and the other part mocks them", but so what. I don't see a problem with Paul's contributions to the discussion.

  319. TheFirstGamerInParis says

    As someone who actually saw this silliness unfold on the ground – at the cesspools of 4chan and other imageboards, gamer forums and certain subreddits – Clark is right, but not in the way he thinks. Games journalism, accountability, The Fine Young Capitalists and all the rest are post-hoc justifications for what started as – and is still primarily fueled by – just another round of the usual 4chan vs. tumblr/feminist, "I'm-sexually-frustrated-and-need-something-to-lash-out-at" poo-flinging contest that has been raging for years. Feel free to actually consult the primary sources – 4chan, 8chan, reddit and the rest – if you care to.

    It's all quite a bit less… noble(?)… than the (admittedly very interesting and in most other cases surprisingly relevant) centuries-long trans-Atlantic Very Important Thing that Clark is currently obsessed with. This whole saga has been a revolving door of idiots tricking other idiots in acting as their personal armies, with Clark as the latest recruit:
    -Some jilted ex-boyfriend recruits 4chan's /v/ as their personal army, using their pre-existing Tumblr/SJW/Sarkeesian obsession as bait
    -/v/ recruits /b/ as part of their personal army, using /b/'s well-documented sociopathy and obsession with causing more "lulz" as bait
    -/b/ recruits otherwise reasonable gamers into their personal army, using their insecurities about "losing" their precious "gamer" label as bait
    -Gamers recruit conservative bloggers like Yiannopoulos into their personal army, using the opportunity to take potshots at the Other Team and free gamer clickbait ad-revenue as bait
    -Conservative bloggers recruit Clark into their personal army, because Clark hates (his tinfoil-hat interpretation of the (American media's conception of)) the Left… also he recently read Albion's Seed and is super excited about it, you guys.
    -Meanwhile, as each new useful idiot is brought into the fold and keeps the controversy going, the trolls and misogynists at the core of all the creeping and harassment giggle to themselves as they watch others keep the shitstorm churning for them – and do some pro-bono post-hoc rationalization on their behalf, to boot.

    Aside from raising questions about the… coherence… behind his characterization and historical interpretation of one or more of the "sides" in this thing, all Clarke has really revealed with this post is that he is just as eager to fight the simplistic, reductionist, Manichean, media-approved, vaguely-defined-yet-viciously-fought culture wars of people either cleverer or more sociopathic than he is – and just as eager to frame anything and everything into his own peculiar framework of ideology and pet-peeves in the service of post-hoc justification of said participation – as the Leftists, the Rightists, the SJWs, the GGers, the feminists et al.

    Clark made one of the biggest mistakes one can make on the internet: he took 4chan's words at face value.

    EDITED to try to make it more readable

  320. sinij says

    Clark, you spent some time highlighting trends, but I am curious what are your opinions on eventual conclusion of this specific fight.

    Personally, I don't see SJW winning this fight. You just can't force such non-conformant community as gamers to comply with anything. Even if you go door-to-door shooting people. At the same time, gaming used to be highly stigmatized in society, it is likely that SJW efforts will see tenfold return of this once nukes (bronies, LARP, furries) start flying.

    At the same time, pontifications about entrenched patriarchy in the bronie movement will be highly entertaining to read. From far away.

  321. says

    @Grandy:

    Paul is correct. Gamergaters do [ X, Y, Z ]

    I find "do", when applied to a large and diverse set, to be beyond unuseful and actively harmful to clear thought.

    Democrats do kill their parents. Republicans do harm animals. Not all of them, of course, but some.

    Meh.

    They're so famous for it Clickhole made note of it.

    Oh, well if The Onion thinks a left-wing simplification about right-wing motivations can be milked for laughs, then I guess that settles it.

  322. says

    @TheFirstGamerInParis

    Conservative bloggers recruit Clark into their personal arm

    LOLLLLLL. Yes, right. Exactly. Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers called me yesterday morning and asked if I could take a break from calling for the government to be burned to the ground, and write a 4,000 word article on how GamerGate sprung from the same battle lines that define Hadrian's Wall.

    Clark made one of the biggest mistakes one can make on the internet: he took 4chan's words at face value.

    I don't believe I've ever once visited 4chan.

  323. Paul Moloney says

    Thanks for bringing your incisive commentary to the blog, Paul…and please make sure to take it with you when you leave.

    Yup, isolate one word at random and ignore the point of my comment or indeed any others.

    A genuine low point in Popehat's history, sadly.

    P.

  324. TheFirstGamerInParis says

    LOLLLLLL. Yes, right. Exactly. Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers called me yesterday morning and asked if I could take a break from calling for the government to be burned to the ground, and write a 4,000 word article on how GamerGate sprung from the same battle lines that define Hadrian's Wall.

    Hyper-defensive hyperbole that intentionally misinterprets a cherry-picked fraction of my post does not look good on you. Nobody needs to make a literal phone-call for misinformation to spread and dogpiles to form, and you know that.

    I don't believe I've ever once visited 4chan.

    And that is why your interpretation of this is inherently flawed and comes across as rather naive. This is like waxing lyrical about the meaning behind Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writing… without "ever once" visiting one of his books. Did it never occur to to you to take the source material into account?

    You are being trolled, by and for the benefit of people you would likely normally despise.

  325. says

    Best ever Popehat entry. It goes like this:

    OP: #GamerGate isn't really about what it claims to be about, it's about the broader, nebulous "culture war" instead.

    Anti-GG Comments: No, no, no, you're wrong, because #GamerGate isn't really about any of the things its says it's about, it's about other stuff.

    Clark: Yeah, that's what I said.

    Anti-GG Comments: But you didn't say it in a way that makes us out to be the unambiguous good guys! And them the bad guys!

    Point, set, match for Clark, really – even if he's wrong in a lot of the particulars.

  326. says

    @TheFirstGamerInParis

    Hyper-defensive hyperbole that intentionally misinterprets a cherry-picked fraction of my post

    First, let me say that I love, love, love the use of the pink go-to weapon here: "defensive". It's indicative of the pink modus operandi: "we get to attack you and question your motives, and if you disagree with us you're commiting the sin of defensiveness".

    Now, on to the meat: you said that I'd been "recruited by conservative bloggers".

    This was not just wrong, but laughable wrong.

    I didn't "cherry pick" anything; I responded to you with tact and restraint, by not fisking your comment one line at a time.

    @Paul Moloney

    Yup, isolate one word at random and ignore the point of my comment or indeed any others.

    I didn't isolate one word "at random"; I picked the insulting ad-hominem in your comment and attacked you specifically for it.

    If you don't want to have the weak points in your comments called out, don't put weak points in your comments.

    A genuine low point in Popehat's history, sadly.

    Please contact Ken; I'm sure he'll give you your money back.

  327. Paul Moloney says

    I'm no fan of "let's call someone or something a name that is part of their real name and the other part mocks them", but so what. I don't see a problem with Paul's contributions to the discussion.

    Indeed, the use of "Goobergater" has a semi-serious point; anyone who has used the actual name on Twitter to criticise GG will be used to being deluged with abuse. In my case this included vile libellous comments and then someone setting up a similarly named account with my avatar to doxx people. I've been discussing controversial topics on line for 26 years now since Usenet and never experienced anything remotely like this.

  328. Paul Moloney says

    weak points in your comments

    Genuinely hilarious from a man who thinks Otto Von Bismark (sic) was a proto-SJW.

    P.

  329. says

    @Paul Moloney:

    the use of "Goobergater" has a semi-serious point; anyone who has used the actual name on Twitter to criticise GG will be used to being deluged with abuse.

    So you're saying that faced with a choice about what terms you use, you chose to use a vile libelous term to describe every member of the other side because if you'd used a neutral term instead, people might make vile libelous comments about you?

    Hm.

  330. says

    @Clark

    I find "do", when applied to a large and diverse set, to be beyond unuseful and actively harmful to clear thought.

    This from the person who dropped the "I happen to know for a fact that one of the people on the list of harassed women is a sociopath and a liar" into the discussion. Spare me, Clark. You aren't talking to some random who wandered in drunk.

  331. Paul Moloney says

    "vile libelous term"

    "Goobergater" is vile and libellous? Please explain. I presume the etymology derived from Goober Grape. Is there another meaning I'm unaware of? Is comparing someone to a jar of peanut butter and jelly now actionable and the worst thing one can call someone? Why bless.

    And just to elaborate as you seem unable to follow anything I say; I _did_ originally use Gamergate/r. _Then_ the deluge of abuse/libel/impersonation/doxxing happened.

  332. says

    @Grandy:

    This from the person who dropped the "I happen to know for a fact that one of the people on the list of harassed women is a sociopath and a liar" into the discussion. Spare me, Clark. You aren't talking to some random who wandered in drunk.

    I'm making a distinction which you are apparently not following.

    I specifically say that talking about "large and diverse sets" of people, as if they were monolithic and identical, to be foolish.

    I have no problem calling out one individual. I would not have objected if you'd pointed to one GamerGater and said "THIS guy is a tool, a liar, and a doxxer". I'd believe that you had reasons to say so.

    In my case, I called out Zoe Quinn as a sociopath and a liar because, having read the chat logs at Eron Gjoni's The Zoe Post, I see absolutely no other possibility than that Zoe is both a serial liar and someone who meets the DSM definition of "sociopath".

  333. TheFirstGamerInParis says

    You said that I'd been "recruited by conservative bloggers".

    You don't strike me as autistic, so I'm going to assume that you've chosen to act intentionally thick as a rhetorical device. "Recruit" is not here being used in a literal, send-a-guy-out-to-colleges-and-write-down-contact-info way. You, in the service of writing another article about your new favorite book, are rationalizing and legitimizing the arguments of GGers and the right-wing pundit dogpilers on their side, for them. You've taken their arguments and run wild with them, characertizing the Other Team with the same hyperbolic and conspiratorial reasoning that they do. That you have been (metaphorically, keep up) recruited into doing their dirty work for them unintentionally is certainly unfortunate, but sadly that does not refute my assertion.

    Would you prefer if I instead use the phrase "being manipulated by" to clear up any confusion? Or would you simply stop responding because that would shut out any further attempts by you to deflect by way of arguing literalist semantics?

    I didn't "cherry pick" anything; I responded to you with tact and restraint, by not fisking your comment one line at a time.

    You responded to only two sentences, one of which was taken completey out of the context from which it appears, and continue to ignore every other part of the post. You couldn't even be bothered the quote the whole sentence. That's cherry picking. You even cherry-picked that one sentence from that post repsonding to your cherry picking! Are you seroiusly just going to ignore the whole "I refuse to even consider glancing at the primary source and vector for the instigating party in this controversy" part of my post?

    But feel free to repsond to any other part of my posts besides quibbling about the term "recruit".

  334. says

    Someday I'm going to do a post collecting all the "worst post ever" "low point for Popehat" "gravely disappointed" comments we've ever gotten.

    Meanwhile, I'm working on my #GamerGate post.

  335. sinij says

    @Grandy At this point you are purely discussing Clark's stylistic choices as a blogger and commenter. If you could kindly make all your repetitive objections at once and allow this conversation to move on?

  336. Ken says

    @TheFirstGamerInParis

    I think you're missing a big part of why GG continues to capture reasonable supporters who don't hate women and don't want to exclude them from gaming. Specifically, I think many reasonable gamers (liberal, conservative, libertarian, or otherwise) are fed up with "critical analysis" of the injection of gender (or "grievance") politics into games journalism and discussion. I'm fairly avid gamer, and have been for over 20 years. I've been reading gaming blogs fairly regularly since around 2006, including Kotaku, Polygon, and others.

    In the last few years, the popular gaming blogs have started regularly running think pieces focused on gender. The majority, if not all, of these pieces can be boiled down to: 1) too few women in development houses; 2) too few positive or strong portrayals of women characters in games; 3) sexualization of women characters in games; and 4) too many masculine characters. These articles then strongly imply, if not outright state, that gamers are stupid and misogynistic for liking games with these faults. Whether intended or not, the articles come off as self-righteous denunciations of gamers for having tastes that offend what Clark would call the blue orthodoxy.

    Gamers are tired of being called misogynists for playing Call of Duty. They're tired of constantly being talked down to by the journalists meant to be covering their favorite hobby. They're tired of the preening PC moralist telling gamers that Mario Brothers represents the patriarchy because main character is a plumber saving a princess from an evil turtle. That's the culture war that Clark is talking about, and that's why GG has many supporters amongst gamers.

    Finally, there is no doubt that there are plenty of GG supporters who issues nasty death threats and harass their opponents. But, those children/extremists/assholes shouldn't define GG any more than Al Qaeda or ISIS should define Islam.

  337. sinij says

    Someday I'm going to do a post collecting

    I am gravely disappointed that this hasn't happened already. It is truly a low point for Popehat and the worst oversight ever.

  338. Paul Moloney says

    " the last few years, the popular gaming blogs have started regularly running think pieces focused on gender. "

    It's tragic that people are forced to read these.

    These articles then strongly imply, if not outright state, that gamers are stupid and misogynistic

    Which is weird as most if not all of these articles are written by gamers, albeit ones capable of criticism of their own hobby.

    P.

  339. Guesting says

    @John H

    I should be thankful that you just prove my point. This is what is going on in both sides. There are people that genuinely don't tolerate harassment and then there are people who do. You and all anti-GG are being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the people who actually believe in the movement about ethics and fixate in the small group in an attempt to discredit the movement. This is why anti-GG's side hasn't been able to stop a "misogynistic group for 2 entire months, this is why that "hateful" group has managed to make companies pull ads from websites. When people dig enough they see that anti-GG's bad side is equally or even worse that GG's bad side.

    @Max

    In the contrary, the ethics issue have been proven right (unless being a patron to a dev while writting about then [Ms. Hernandez] is suddenly an ethical thing to do. Not to mention, blacklisting writers so they cannot get a job in the industry [Destructoid's drama] which by the way… completely illegal).

    anti-GG is an echo chamber, at least GG admits it has very bad people in it but anti-GG is claiming moral high ground while digging their own grave in a landfill.

  340. sinij says

    @Paul Moloney

    albeit ones capable of criticism of their own hobby.

    I am gravely disappointed that Popehat uses this awful font style and color scheme. It makes reader's eyes bleed, and as a result completely invalidates every idea, especially anything posted by Clark, that is voiced on this blog. Such blatant and in your face faux pas could only be enacted by stylistic entrenchment of Ken-dominated Stylearchy. It is truly a low point for Popehat.

    Immediately change the style to what *I* would like it to be.

  341. Ken says

    @Paul Moloney

    I didn't imply it was a tragedy. You really can't understand that someone might be annoyed with this trend if that person disagrees with the faux-academic cultural analysis such blogs have become find of? Especially considering be condescending tone?

    And yes, games journalists are gamers. Not sure what that obvious point has to do with what I wrote. Moreover, just because you don't like GG does not mean that all GG supporters are stupid and/or evil reactionaries.

  342. sorrykb says

    Guesting wrote:

    When people dig enough they see that anti-GG's bad side is equally or even worse that GG's bad side.

    Citation needed.

  343. TheFirstGamerInParis says

    @Ken

    You are absolutely right in explaining the reasons behind how otherwise reasonable people get sucked in. But those reasons are bunk.

    It is absolutely naive and irrational to demand that critics not be allowed to inject gender politics into games journalism and discussion for the simple reason that more women are playing games than ever before. Women are going to be more prone to talk about woman things, especially if those woman things have to do with (perceived or actual) endemic discrimination and harassment. To expect otherwise, to hold the position that, "fine, we'll let in the the broads, but ONLY if they agree to talk about what we want to talk about" strikes me as a little… I dunno, insane? Entitled? Unrealistic, at the best? And to be perfectly honest, I've been following games and games journalism for about as long as you, and the only reason that I keep hearing about gender issues and so-called accusations of misogyny is because gamers and gamer forms just will not shut the hell up about it. The only reason that I even know who Sarkeesian and Quinn are is because of people who are outraged that people like Sarkeesian and Quinn are being given so much publicity. Surely you see the contradiction, there? The very people who supposedly don't want to give these gender warriors exposure are the very same people who are giving them their widest and most constant public media exposure. And then all their hyperventilating turnd into harassment… and now even non-gamers know about (and largely sympathize with) Sarkeesian and Quinn.

    I have never been called a misogynist for playing any video game (no, not even in college). I have only seen minor internet personalities giving their own half-assed opinions about it on blogs and Youtube and Tumblr, and the only reason I've seen those is because of gamers getting angry about it and demanding that I get angry about it to. And now I know who Sarkeesian and Quinn are, despite my best efforts, which did end up making me angry, so there's that. "Feminists trying to take our games" is entirely the chimera of the gaming community's own making; we could have just ignored these women and let their unimpressive musings fall down the memory hole.

    But no. 4chan thrives on conflict, reddit thrives on self-righteousness, political pundit bloggers thrive on stupid devisive non-issues. And Clark thrives on taking random media specatcles and shoving them through the seive of Albion's Seed and his own personal game of Horde vs Alliance.

    Al Qaeda does not define Islam, just as GG does not define the gaming community. But Al Qaeda is most certainly defined by the actions and beliefs of their members, and anyone who chooses to identify with GG will most certainly be defined by the actions and beliefs of their members.

  344. Castaigne says

    @Mike Cernovich:

    You do know Gawker writers (anti-GamerGate) have said stuff as bad or worse than I have?

    I personally haven't seen Gawker writers say that women should be raped.
    I have seen you tweet such.
    So, no, I disagree with you on this statement.

    And Chris Kluwe…Go read his Twitter.

    Yes, his work is inspired. I have added "slopebrowed weaseldicks" to my lexicon. I generally prefer my own "cockmangling asshat", though.

    Go read that CBS article discussing what he may or may not have known about some very serious stuff.

    This one about him not being a moral warrior? No shit he's not being a moral warrior. He's not trying to be. And he happily provided all the information he knew about the underage girl in question to prosecutors during deposition in late July, which you seem to be ignorant about. Consider yourself informed now!

    Sorry, buddy, but you can't ride a high horse. You read Gawker sites and those people are no better or worse than I am, and you give them page views and thus advertising dollars. Save your moralizing for church.

    1) I have read maybe 2 Gawker articles in the entirety of their existence. And I've been on the net since 1992.
    2) You seem to have me pegged as some sort of moral crusader. You are wrong. Dead wrong. I'm not on any type of crusade at all, and if I oppose you, it's not from any moral stance. It's because I find you personally offensive. To me, you're nothing but a tout. I don't like the cut of your jib. You have me pegged for the wrong reasons, which is unsurprising.

    =====

    @TheFirstGamerInParis:

    You are being trolled, by and for the benefit of people you would likely normally despise.

    I wouldn't bother. If you examine his twitter, Clarkhat, for the past month, you will find he's already fully allied with MRAs like Roosh and is a firm member of the Pale Ineffectuals known as NeoReactionaries. Clark is just going to simply dismiss anything you have to say that isn't part of his "natural order of things".

  345. Castaigne says

    @Clark:

    you chose to use a vile libelous term to describe every member of the other side

    Being called a GOOBER is a "vile libelous term"? Really? Being called…A GOOBER. Is dork, nerd, geek, or dumbass ALSO vile and libelous?

    If so, dude, you need to man it up a bit.

    In my case, I called out Zoe Quinn as a sociopath and a liar because, having read the chat logs at Eron Gjoni's The Zoe Post, I see absolutely no other possibility than that Zoe is both a serial liar and someone who meets the DSM definition of "sociopath".

    Finally, you name a goddamn motherfucking name. Was that so fucking hard? Was there some mental blockage preventing you from doing that at the onset? Christ, learn to be blunt, terse, and precise from the fucking onset.

    =====

    @Ken:

    Whether intended or not, the articles come off as self-righteous denunciations of gamers for having tastes that offend what Clark would call the blue orthodoxy.

    Then they can stop reading them, can't they? Go off, form their own sites, write their own articles that say what they want to hear.

    Gamers are tired of being called misogynists for playing Call of Duty. They're tired of constantly being talked down to by the journalists meant to be covering their favorite hobby. They're tired of the preening PC moralist telling gamers that Mario Brothers represents the patriarchy because main character is a plumber saving a princess from an evil turtle.

    And so the response isn't to not give sites where they are 'talked down to' their clicks and advertising and money, but instead to issue death threats and make rape squad plans on 4chan IRC.

    I see.

    You'll excuse me, I'm sure, if I say that the tactics and strategy that GG overall has taken is, well, fucking stupid. And I'll explain why I think that, clearly and precisely.

    You see, when conservatives decided that their interests were not being served by mainstream media, they went and formed their own media. You've got Fox and Free Republic and Where Liberty Dwells and Hannity and Beck and Michael Savage and the Drudge Report and Conservapedia and all that…and no liberals are allowed to comment. They never have to hear anything they don't want to hear; they have their own echo chamber.

    Aaaaaand the GG people can't do that themselves, despite their supposed overwhelming numbers or primacy in the industry or whatever. They can't set up their AntiGawker and AntiKotaku and whatnot and not miss the SJWs, who are supposedly so insignificant to the gaming community and who will not be missed. And in a short time, Gawker and Kotaku and the rest wither away, leaving the Anti replacements dominant. No, this just can't happen at all.

    My conclusion? Either the GG people are idiots entire or they are paper tigers. They know the solution; they just don't want to implement it.

    You really can't understand that someone might be annoyed with this trend if that person disagrees with the faux-academic cultural analysis such blogs have become find of? Especially considering be condescending tone?

    Then why don't they fuck off and go do their own things?
    Punks did it.
    Goths did it.
    Conservatives did it.
    GG can't do it? Fuck that noise.
    It's like the Men Going Their Own Way people. They never actually DO go their own way.

  346. says

    If you don't see the problem with doxxing, there shouldn't be a problem on both sides. A significant portion of the "I have to move out" stuff asserted by the anti-GG contingent is based on doxxing. It's a long thread, I must have missed your protest against that, by your standards, over-reaction.

  347. Anon says

    It's not just ethics. The games media by and large don't respect their audience. Look up Dragon's Crown and Jason Scheirer. The guy writes a screed how he doesn't like the depiction of women in games, then writes an article a week later complaining about censorship in games (ignoring that developers/publishers do that to avoid shitstorms like the one he caused).

    Likewise, Kotaku (where Scheirer works) reported on alleged sex scandals involving male developers (look up Brad Wardell), but when it comes to one of their friends (Quinn), suddenly they aren't interested. The hypocrisy runs deep. (Here are some of Quinn's other alleged sins not worth reporting: sleeping with her married boss, sleeping with someone involved with indie game awards, sexually harassing someone at a wedding, harassing The Fine Young Capitalists game jam, destroying another game jam with the aid of Nathan Grayson in order to set up her own, and so on. Christ, when is it worth investigating?)

    They essentially want to eliminate creative and intellectual freedom in the name of Social Justice. Most games journalists themselves are simply lazy, cowardly, incompetent, stupid, and greedy, so they just go along with whatever is easiest and gets them hits (clickbait). Some/most GamerGaters are Blue/Pink themselves, but they'd rather not use pressure tactics to force a creative vision on developers.

  348. princessartemis says

    @TheFirstGamerInParis, your comment reminded me of a comic I saw once. Can't find the link for it, else I'd show rather than describe. It was of a woman in a videogame store, about to buy herself a new game. Some male twits come up and give her the song and dance about being a "gamer girl" and hit on her, so she swats them over the head with her game. Shortly thereafter, some female twits come up to her and criticize her choice in games for supporting the Patriarchy and wouldn't she rather play something more woman-positive? She swatted them over the head with her chosen game, too.

    Some days I feel like that woman in the videogame store who would really just like to enjoy my chosen game without getting hit on or expected to conform to an ideal of what women gamers should be like.

  349. Max says

    Great. We have GGers pretending that the dev slept with the journo and the journo then wrote something – even though we all know it just isn't true – and we have been round the block on this one.
    Then that there is horrible corruption because of journalists backing small indie devs on sodding Patreon. Even though we actually dealt with that nonsense well up the thread.
    Then that an obvious (if ill-advised and offensive) joke on one Tweet made by a fellow nerd/geek/gamer about nerd/geek/gamers is the worst thing ever and actually advocates bullying.
    People receiving actual death threats should just realise they are a bit of fun/what happens on the internet.
    Then that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't like or play games.
    Then that she doesn't meet the standards of academia of the GGers so she shouldn't be allowed to speak.
    If only you added, 'if you just watch this Youtube video by some guy you will then be convinced – you must listen to the TRUTH'. You haven't (yet – someone will in a while).

    There is just the same parade of discredited nonsense that all GGers trot out and then all antis have to point out the flaws in. You GGers know the flaws already. You've had this discussion before. You play it like a card in a game hoping that on just this one forum there isn't someone with the counter card. This is actually about facts, facts you know don't back your side, and yet you repeat them and each time you do you drag someones sex life through the virtual streets.

    Zoe Quinn was a nobody. If you GG lot had left her alone, she still would be. What she did was nothing to do with journalistic ethics and a lot to do with the mistakes a lot of people make in their romantic lives. Yet the GGers bring her up constantly. 'Well perhaps the journalist didn't write an article about her after he slept with her, but before he shagged her he wrote an article about a project she was involved with which tangentially mentioned her and they might have been friends, and then I heard that….' Who cares. No breach of ethics. Stop it. Leave her alone.

    And, and sodding Patreon! You are still pretending backing someone's game on Patreon for a fiver is corruption if a journalist doesn't mention it! Well, well done, That is now not possible in games journalism. But why aren't you ashamed of yourselves for pretending it ever was a bid deal?

    This is just because you don't want any view of games culture expressed other than your own. You want us SJWs, and cultural marxists and feminists to shut up forever. One question, are we still allowed to play games, or is it just that we are forbidden to talk and write about them?

  350. sorrykb says

    Anon wrote:

    They essentially want to eliminate creative and intellectual freedom in the name of Social Justice.

    Or… maybe.. possibly, some people in the gaming media happen to believe:
    – that a more diverse gaming community would be a good thing
    – that misogyny and harassment of female gamers and devs — simply because they are female — is bad for gaming (as well as bad generally) and they want no part of it.
    – that maybe, just maybe… greater inclusivity in gaming might actually lead to more games and (gasp) more fun and entertainment.

    Or the gaming media are part of a vast SJW conspiracy to drive themselves out of business and ruin things for everyone. Yeah, that seems a lot more probable.

  351. Ken in NJ says

    we could have just ignored these women and let their unimpressive musings fall down the memory hole. But no. 4chan thrives on conflict, reddit thrives on self-righteousness, political pundit bloggers thrive on stupid devisive non-issues. And Clark thrives on taking random media specatcles and shoving them through the seive of Albion's Seed and his own personal game of Horde vs Alliance.

    An amusing observation.

    Al Qaeda does not define Islam, just as GG does not define the gaming community. But Al Qaeda is most certainly defined by the actions and beliefs of their members, and anyone who chooses to identify with GG will most certainly be defined by the actions and beliefs of their members.

    "While I agree that the actions of some of our members are abhorrent, we have many members who don't act that way, and also find such behavior unacceptable. Members who support the true purpose of our group – to conserve, protect and maintain the distinctive institutions, rights, privileges, principles and ideals of a pure Americanism. And besides, how can we be sure those negros didn't hang themselves just to gain attention and sympathy?"

  352. Max says

    Hey, this is such fun. Is anyone an actual Marxist so we can have the same old argument about the Siege of Kronstadt?

  353. Ken in NJ says

    @tmlUTAS
    you previously asked about Mike Chernovich's doxxing, the cleaned up post is here: http://idledillettante.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/mike-cernovich-gamergate-lawyer/

    That article doesn't appear to have been written by Zoe Quinn – for example, at one point it says "Quinn contacted me yesterday morning about the document and confirmed its authenticity. " Are you telling me that it was written by her?

    Because otherwise it doesn't support MCs plaintive cries ot "Zoe Quinn doxxed me" at all.

    She admitted to the incident in the text.

    I can't seem to find anything like that on that page. Maybe you could quote it to help me find it?

  354. says

    @Grandy:

    No, I understood it.

    OK. Then I don't understand your objection. You said it was inconsistent of me to dislike generalizations about groups while simultaneously raising objections about an individual. Can you explain?

  355. Guesting says

    @sorrykb

    I could easily provide you proof of my claim. It is not hard to do so, but by reading your comments you will just hand waive it away, brush it off as either a lie, someone not related to anti-GG(hur hur, we can say this but GG can't) or "these people in our side have gotten more plus they are female!!!"

    Or… maybe.. possibly, some people in the gaming media happen to believe:
    – that a more diverse gaming community would be a good thing
    – that misogyny and harassment of female gamers and devs — simply because they are female — is bad for gaming (as well as bad generally) and they want no part of it.
    – that maybe, just maybe… greater inclusivity in gaming might actually lead to more games and (gasp) more fun and entertainment.

    Too bad THIS is already what is going on. Last time I checked the US alone wasn't the one making every single game nor is the entire consumer side of the business white and male. The claims of misogyny are stated over and over again because a small group of people have made them. If the ENTIRE group would be misogynist then why isn't it dead? The accusations are pretty effective when applied to conservative figures but it hasn't been with this. Maybe that will make you realize that probably there is more to this fiasco than merely "misogynist vs female angels"

    @ken in NJ

    So, we can call people from Ferguson a bunch of looters? I mean, those few people clearly represent the entire movement. Does PETA and their crazy ideals represent every person that thinks animals should be treated better? Do all Muslims are a bunch of terrorist because they refuse to abandon their faith due to actual terrorist staining its name? Do all feminist fall under the crazy category just because tumblr has crazy users advocating for stupid things?

    Seems like you do or you're intellectually dishonest. Either way, you are wrong.

  356. says

    "The red team thought it was OK to hold other humans in bondage and that idea had to be protested too."

    Actually, the blue team, Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh were the ones who wanted to keep the entire nations in bondage. The Red Team, the Republicans objected to slavery in USA and abroad.

  357. Anon says

    To Castaigne: there are trolls on both sides doxxing and issuing threats. There are also unaligned trolls attacking both sides for laughs (this has happened at least once by creating a fake twitter account, causing both sides to attack each other). The SJWs/journalists have taken the position that GamerGate is all about misogyny, so they just lump in all trolls with GamerGate.

    The SJW are a threat because they want to eliminate creative freedom. Some people say that developers and publishers will ignore them, but I doubt it. They've brought incredible pressure on smaller devs to do what they want and GameGate is a pushback against that. If you're a small dev, and some SJW journalists decide you're a misogynistic piece of shit, kiss any positive coverage goodbye. You might not get any coverage at all. The biggest devs and publishers might succeed on advertising alone, but the small guys, the people games media should be helping, are shit out of luck.

    Manveer Heir apparently made a speech at GDC (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-03-20-we-must-reject-stereotypes-in-games-manveer-heir) in which he scolded the industry for not embracing more SJW beliefs:

    "We should not default to the [stereotypical] position and we shouldn't use realism as an excuse… because most of our games aren't anywhere near realistic. The premise of the games we make is so fantastical that to call it realistic is beyond laughable… If we want to make meaningful games, if we want to avoid turning away a significant portion of our potential audience, if we want to be a successful medium that is grown-up and not stuck in adolescence, then we need to stop falling back on the realism excuse and use realism responsibly and not as a default," Heir stressed.

    Can you see how these might be interpreted as pressure tactics designed to force their point of view on people who might not want it? If you don't accept them, you're an adolescent who doesn't make meaningful games. They claim to be challenging the majority or advancing society, but they're just assholes.

  358. A.Nagy says

    As an avid gamer, as someone who has been following gamergate since it's inception. This is a great article, because my first response was VIDEO GAME JOURNALISTS ARE CORRUPT WOAHHH SAY IT ISN'T SO.

    But really what is keeping it alive is the culture war between people who want a game to follow a checkbox of social issues, and they people who don't care about that stuff. It's pretty much what happened in the SFF community only a few steps behind.

    I'm of the opinion that the days of AAA title domination are over sort of, while they still lead the pack there is very much room for whatever niche game you want to make as long as someone wants to play it. I think what many of the greys are just waking up to is that game journalism aka the people they trust to tell them what games are good may be lying to them in order to push social progress. This was all fine when the progress was pushing away from companies using DRM and everyone was running on and giving 1 star reviews to games they never played because DRM but now that it's for social justice everyone is up in arms. In general I have been pushing to encourage the blues/pinks to make games and have fun if you don't like a game don't buy it. I tend to find the comments made by the pinks more ignorant of gaming as a whole and the way business works while the grey's reactions more reactionary because they see someone trying to change what they currently enjoy. I believe companies just need to realize who their target audience for their games and focus on them you will never please everyone and if companies listened to whoever complained about them the most Nintendo would of been out of buisness decades ago.

    Personally I don't follow games journalists and pretty much go after trusted developers that have earned my trust (Nintendo/Platinum/Atlus/Gust/Amplitude). So I hope the end result of this is people having less trust in game reviewers and do more thinking for themselves.

    As far as deaththreats go I'm sure some are fake and exaguratted but I'm sure many are real. People who send deaththreats are scum but if you havn't gotten an email in your inbox threatening to kill you/rape your family/something of the like you clearly haven't been in a hot topic internet argument before. Is it sad and a bad thing, yes. Is it about hatred of women hell no it's because people are assholes on the internet ENJOY YOUR STAY.

  359. says

    @A.Nagy:

    But really what is keeping it alive is the culture war between people who want a game to follow a checkbox of social issues, and they people who don't care about that stuff. It's pretty much what happened in the SFF community only a few steps behind.

    Totally agreed.

  360. sorrykb says

    @Anon: No, a private individual or private group scolding the industry is not remotely close to forcing a point of view on someone. (It could be worrisome if it were a government official doing the scolding. Depending on circumstances.)

    You're free to think that Manveer Heir is an asshole if you like. I read the article and reached a different conclusion. That's my right.

    But reading what you said here, it's not about being forced to change your views. You're objecting to a different viewpoint even being expressed in public in a place where you might hear it. That's not a right. Not even close.

  361. sorrykb says

    But really what is keeping it alive is the culture war between people who want a game to follow a checkbox of social issues, and they people who don't care about that stuff.

    Clearly they do care. They care enough to freak out and manufacture a sex scandal. They care enough to rage and threaten advertiser boycotts. Some of them care enough to threaten to rape and kill people.

    If they didn't care about "that stuff", we would not be having this discussion.

  362. tweell says

    Ah, truth. No, it's not what you Feel it should be. Take the Anita Sarkeesian death threat. It was indeed investigated by the FBI, who found it to be… not credible. It came from someone in Brazil. No, the airlines are not in the habit of letting Brazilians travel with large bombs so as to blow up SJW feminists (or any other reason). And flying would have been the only way this person could have gotten there in time.

    NOT CREDIBLE. The other alleged death threats didn't even get that far, so why should they be given credibility? How many times have SJW's cried wolf? A lot. How many times has it actually been true? Zero, IIRC.

  363. says

    "But reading what you said here, it's not about being forced to change your views. You're objecting to a different viewpoint even being expressed in public in a place where you might hear it. That's not a right. Not even close."

    Is this how you characterize the "social justice" warriors, who object to people talking about stuff they don't like?

  364. Anonymous says

    Do you know who's objecting to a different viewpoint even being expressed in public? People who have tried to silence the discussions that ultimately turned into #gamergate.

    This is not something subject to discussion. It's a simple fact. If you can't accept that fact, then mutual understanding is impossible, but it also means you're living in some bizarro world of your own delusions, or delusions fed to you by the people #gamergate is now going against.

  365. Max says

    @sorrykb
    I totally agree and with @Castaigne
    If the GGers got together a site or two in WordPress and built themselves an audience around it, and then went massive, I think I'd be curiously proud of them. They could discuss just the mechanics of the game, and find some way of defining 'fun' without being subjective.
    Then the one or two blogs we run could write extensive critiques of games from a feminist or pro-situ prospective.
    Proper games journalism could just write things they thought people might actually read.
    Perhaps the GGers might end up being right and everyone would want to read their joyless examinations of 'game mechanics', and 'was it fun' divorced from 'how did it make me feel?'. They would win and be the bestest media.

    As it is, the GGers want someone to come along and make us go away. They would like to just not read articles from another viewpoint, but they just can't stop themselves. In the early days they were actually calling for a government commission to stop us saying mean things about sexism in games. Now they have wised up a bit and appealing to the real gods: the advertisers.

    What is wrong with diversity?

    They roll around in 8chan like they have been cast out of Heaven (I actually quoted Paradise Lost before but no one cared – I might start a Hashtag movement to make people appreciate my erudition). They could make 8chan big, Or as @Castaigne said create their own punk sites that challenge the mainstream, take their audience and make them rich. With similar amounts of effort. And we would be jealous and a little mournful.

    Oh, and I thought before. They are GGers. And 8 sounds like 'ate'. And they hang out on 8chan. They are. Now wait for it. They are… GG8chaners!…Hahhhhhaahahhah.

    Sorry.

    I'll go now.

  366. b says

    I'm obnoxiously reposting this is a reply to a direct question from Clark.

    @Clark "What sort of things suggest to you that it might be [a prank]?"

    Generally, you cover your bases better: your writing is better organized, more concise, less tangent-twitchy, and a little mordant rather than strident. This piece is somewhat more indulgent and shows some of the "true believer's" habit of stapling all one's pet peeves onto the argument—the drive-by piling on of irrelevant flags, bells, and whistles. You don't convince here: jotting this off a little too quickly shows. You veer into or just barely skirt a proper full-on rant, but still leave proper exposition and explanation behind—as you leave readers behind, unconvinced or just baffled.

    So, in brief, I saw fewer signs of discipline here, in thought or word. Normally, even if I'm skeptical, you put on a good show. I credit you with that discipline and with a capacity for subtlety, leading me in this case to invert Hanlon's razor, as it were.

  367. Max says

    @Clark

    But really what is keeping it alive is the culture war between people who want a game to follow a checkbox of social issues, and they people who don't care about that stuff. It's pretty much what happened in the SFF community only a few steps behind.

    Totally agreed.

    Clark suggesting that there should be no games about diversity, or that no-one should criticise games for lacking diversity, and agreeing with the fact that his team lost a battle or two, and perhaps a war, in SFFand they want a rematch in games.

    Interested in how they will enforce the 'no games about social justice' rule and the 'no horrible socialist or feminist critiques of games' rule.

  368. Anonymous says

    Nobody in #gamergate is stopping anyone from running a site where he publishes ideology-driven reviews of interactive fiction made by their friends and insults the gaming enthusiasts on the side.

    We just refuse to fund it. If you believe there's an audience for that kind of thing – go ahead. We're not that audience and we're making sure everyone knows.

  369. says

    @Max

    Clark suggesting that there should be no games about diversity

    I…what?

    Look, I'm an anarchist. I think everyone should be free to make whatever game they want. As, in fact, they are.

    The culture war aspect of GG / A-GG is not about whether there should be any games about X, or featuring Y, or including more Z.

    The culture war aspect of GG / A-GG is whether people (gay programmers, SJW programmers, white male nerd programmers) should each be free to do whatever the hell they please (the GG side), or whether the gamer culture needs to be changed to some brand new culture, where EVERYONE is "free"…"free" to do exactly what the pinks demand (which is proportional representation of women / gays / whatever both in game content and in game development studios.

    [ Clark suggesting …] that no-one should criticise games for lacking diversity

    Not at all. I strongly defend the pinks' right to criticize games for not being diverse enough. I support the Cheetoh-eaters' right to criticize games for not having enough Cheetohs. I support everyone's right to criticize games for any reason what-so-ever.

    The remedy is more speech.

    Interested in how they will enforce the 'no games about social justice' rule and the 'no horrible socialist or feminist critiques of games' rule.

    I can't understand this.

  370. Gay Mergator says

    This culture war stuff sucks when you remember most of us went to high school together (figuratively). At least when Republicans and Democrats accuse each other of supporting terrorism on Capitol Hill, they go home and drink together and go to the same barbecues etc. Why can't we do that?

  371. Max says

    @Clark
    Excellent. More games about pumped up marines running around shooting brown people for not being American enough (and I guarantee there will be a lot of them, they sell well).
    And criticism of them.
    More games about cute animations of genderless figures wandering through artistic deserts to solve puzzles about the existential nature of reality.
    And criticism of them.

    That is fine. In fact, That is the status quo. I'd prefer crazy outpourings of weirdness and creativity on all sides.

    But the GGers want my side to simply shut up about games and stop making games and they will make death threats or write emails and Tweets till we do. Their Bete Noire Zoe Quinn was an incredibly minor developer without any money who wanted to make games about depressed feminists. How terrible.

  372. Max says

    This culture war stuff sucks when you remember most of us went to high school together (figuratively). At least when Republicans and Democrats accuse each other of supporting terrorism on Capitol Hill, they go home and drink together and go to the same barbecues etc. Why can't we do that?

    I'm a geek. Assuming you are. Our version of drinking a beer: if we weren't doing this we would be playing a game. On the other hand, maybe we should arrange get-togethers where we shout at each other in real life over a beer. Except in that case we would realise we were all pretty similar people really. Except for Dudebro carpetbaggers like Mike C and Milo Y. They would stick out badly.

    In fact, I run a tech company and I'm terrified of discovering my friends and employees are GGers. I'm operating an internal 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

  373. sorrykb says

    Clark wrote:

    The culture war aspect of GG / A-GG is whether people (gay programmers, SJW programmers, white male nerd programmers) should each be free to do whatever the hell they please (the GG side), or whether the gamer culture needs to be changed to some brand new culture, where EVERYONE is "free"…"free" to do exactly what the pinks demand (which is proportional representation of women / gays / whatever both in game content and in game development studios.

    Where, exactly, are all these pink people (I'll have you know… Pink is so not my color.) saying that everyone must be forced to conform? Are they using their color to camouflage themselves somehow?

    Does calling some person or trope sexist somehow magically mandate obedience to my worldview? (Do I have to say it three times to make it work? Or did I miss the SJW Cabal meeting where they handed out the Sacred Taliswomyns?)

    Did I somehow miss some new law?

    Is it really necessary to point out to you that "SJW" criticism of deficiencies in games is more speech?

  374. Ken in NJ says

    @Guesting

    Does PETA and their crazy ideals represent every person that thinks animals should be treated better?

    The fact that you ask this question in this way makes it pretty clear that you really don't understand the concept that voluntary group membership implies shared values. It's especially interesting because right there you demonstrate that you do the same thing- "PETA and their crazy ideas". You've attributed to all members of an organization the "crazy ideas" that some of their members have. How about that.

    But to actually answer your question, no, of course all animal lovers aren't represented by the crazy ideas of PETA. But all members of PETA do have to live with the fact by joining that group, they are going to be associated with those crazy ideas, and will often be assumed to actually believe those crazy ideas, simply by virtue of their membership. Just like you did up above

    As for Muslims and terrorists, of course a Muslim shouldn't be labelled as a terrorist for staying in that group. Unless you're prepared to show that Muslims as a group are mostly terrorists, or hold terrorist attacks as one of their values? Your feminist example and your Ferguson example are equally stupid, for this same reason

    But if someone says they are a member of Al Qaeda, I have no qualms about labeling them as a supporter of terrorism.

    I don't know why this is difficult for you – it's not complicated. When you voluntarily join a group, it is perfectly reasonable and normal for people to assume that share the values of that group. Otherwise why the hell would you join?

    When you join the Catholic church, it's normal for people to think you believe in god
    When you join March of Dimes, it's normal for people to think you want to help eliminate birth defects
    When you join PETA, it's normal for people to think you're a animal rights kook
    When you join Al Qaeda,it's normal for people to think you are a terrorist
    When you join Code Pink, it's normal for people to think you are an angry far-left loon
    When you join GamerGate, it's normal for people to think you're a misogynist

  375. Max says

    @sorrykb

    Oh, goddess, did you miss the SJW lodge meeting in your town? I'll make sure that you get your Taliswomyn.

    In the meantime, you will unfortunately have no way of enforcing your cultural-marxism. Luckily, we are updating the TW so it forces people to read our articles in the first place. never mind agree with them. It also makes an entire Games Industry we have some quibbles with bend to our will.

    Obviously, this will create some ructions as our just having quibbles has generated a fanatical Hashtag movement prepared to issue death threats. or at least write emails to advertisers. until we go away entirely.

  376. says

    @Max

    More games…
    And criticism of them…

    But the GGers want my side to simply shut up about games and stop making games

    Do they?

    First, I am sure that "the GGers" are not a monolithic block who all think as one.

    Second, I see not evidence that more than one or two GG nuts think this.

    Third, even if a dozen (or a thousand) GGers have said this, I will cut them slack, because they feel like they're under assault. Note that this is not me being asymmetric – I usually cut small communities that feel under assault extra slack for their verbal expressions. I understand why [ some ] trans activists on tumblr say things like "die cis scum". I understand why [ some ] blacks who have been on the receiving end of discrimination say "never trust a white". Etc.

    The best summary of the GG position I've seen (and, again, there can be no perfect summary, because there are no perfect points of agreement among everyone in the crowd) is this the set of two interviews embedded here:

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/gamergate-and-morlockery/

  377. ObamaStoleMyGames says

    @tweell
    A few questions:
    1. Is it FBI policy to consider death threats from outside the country to be automatically "not credible", or is it something specific to Brazilian death threats?
    2. Are Brazilians inherently unable to commit acts of physical harm using methods other than explosives? If so, why?
    3. If a Brazilian makes a death threat that specifically mentions the use of explosives, does the FBI then consider it a credible threat?
    4. You say that Brazilians cannot be considered a "credible" threat because "flying would have been the only way this person could have gotten there in time", and, as noted, Brazilians are apparently only proficient in explosive-based weaponry. In time for what? How is this period of time determined?
    5. In the absense of a plane ticket, would the FBI consider a bomb-wielding Brazilian with a jetpack to be a "credible" threat? What about a bomb-wielding Brazilian with a particularly fast boat?
    6. Where are you getting such remarkable behind-the-scenes detail for ongoing FBI investigations? Does the FBI normally divulge this sort of information to the public?
    7. If the truth about SJWs has been written about "zero times", how do you know that SJWs have cried wolf with respect to FBI investigations of alleged death threats "a lot"? Are you implying some sort of conspiracy about which you have insider knowledge, or is this information only available in audio format?

  378. Max says

    @Clark.
    You want to know what GGers actually think? Go to 8chan. And. yes. there you will discover their ultimate goal is to eliminate us SJWs.

    But GGers or SJWs, we are all geeks and this is a family spat. It will be OK in the end.

  379. ObamaStoleMyGames says

    First, I am sure that "the GGers" are not a monolithic block who all think as one.

    After that massive wall of text that portrays different groups of people, who lived in different countries across different centuries, many of whom identify themselves as belonging to different groups, using different rhetoric and appealing to different demographics, as all belonging to one of two monolithic blocks who are so monolithically blocky that you've managed to trace all their motivations, methods, hopes, fears and goals back to same pissing match in England several hundred years ago… adopting this as a form of defense displays a remarkable lack of self-awareness. Or maybe just a lack of shame.

  380. says

    @Max:

    @Clark.
    You want to know what GGers actually think? Go to 8chan

    I disagree. I've stepped in there once, to look at Nrx chat, and it had zero resemblance to the (somewhat) thoughtful Nrx people I know on blogs, twitter, etc.

    8chan is a pit. It appeals to the lowest common denominator, across all groups.

  381. Kevin says

    @Ken in NJ

    When you join PETA, it's normal for people to think you're a animal rights kook
    When you join Al Qaeda,it's normal for people to think you are a terrorist
    When you join Code Pink, it's normal for people to think you are an angry far-left loon
    When you join GamerGate, it's normal for people to think you're a misogynist

    One of these groups is not like the others. The first three are all actual groups, with lists of members, and leadership who can kick members out if they fail to conform to a certain set of beliefs.

    GamerGate, on the other hand, is just whoever decides to tweet with the hashtag #gamergate. Do you see the difference?

  382. Paul Moloney says

    "Their Bete Noire Zoe Quinn was an incredibly minor developer without any money who wanted to make games about depressed feminists."

    And just to emphasise that she was giving this game away for free. On this is based one of the supposedly great corruption/ethics scandals of the era (at least if you count column inches and furiously-hammered-out pixels.)

  383. says

    @kevin:

    One of these groups is not like the others. The first three are all actual groups, with lists of members, and leadership who can kick members out if they fail to conform to a certain set of beliefs.

    Indeed. Republicans agree to certain planks. Democrats agree to certain planks.

    Gays don't agree to planks. Gun owners don't agree to planks. etc.

  384. ObamaStoleMyGames says

    I disagree. I've stepped in there once, to look at Nrx chat, and it had zero resemblance to the (somewhat) thoughtful Nrx people I know on blogs, twitter, etc.

    8chan is a pit. It appeals to the lowest common denominator, across all groups.

    So, what you saw didn't conform to the conclusions that you already had in your mind and doesn't support the narrative you've created for yourself, so you decided to just dismiss the whole thing outright?

    Are you sure you're not on Team Blue? Because that sounds like some pretty egregious Team Blue behavior to me.

  385. A. Nagy says

    I am tired of seeing gamers hate women or all of #gamergate is about hating women; the core movement has nothing at all to do with misogyny. Like go to any fucking convention for games it's not misogynist at all, pretty much every male gamer wants more women gaming. The whole thing was set off by unprofessional conduct occuring in gaming journalism. This is the exact same argument of the if you vote against Obama it's because your racist and hate black people, which yes in 2008 and in college was the base assumption, completely unironically people thought I was racist when it had nothing to do with that. It's happening again now where I'm loosly pro gamergate and boom misogynist why do I hate women.

    Conspiracy theory time…all this war on women stuff is to hype things up for another HISTORIC election in 2016 for Hillary. Where if you vote against Hillary it's because you hate women.

  386. Pluviann says

    I was reading through the comments and when I saw the Daily Mail being used as a source on something as serious as rape I had to skip to the end to comment (I don't usually comment). The Mail is known in the UK as a terrible rag; they are nothing but fear-mongers. In their online incarnation, they post nothing but clickbait – mostly in the form of political outrage or celebrity gossip.

    That article in particular is highly misleading. The 216,000 figure is for sexual assault not rape and it includes both men and women in prison. The 90,479 figure is not sourced so you have no idea where it comes from or exactly what it is measuring. Rape stats get wildly differing results depending on how you ask the question.

    There is a more thorough take on it here.

  387. Ken in NJ says

    First, I am sure that "the GGers" are not a monolithic block who all think as one.

    I agree. They can be fairly divided into three groups – the 8chan trolls who thought it would be just awesome to stir up a bunch of rage-filled misogynistic shit around Zoe Quinn and Kotaku, people they have duped into participating by leading them to believe it's about something else, and the angry neckbeard misogynists who don't really give a fuck what it is or isn't really about, as long as they get to hate on some team pink feminists

    And even among those subgroups I imagine there are differences of opinion

  388. A. Nagy says

    Also Depression Quest is a shit game it may be free but your time is not. Also nobody would of given a shit about this game if it wasn't for the sleeping with gaming journalists who reported on her game part. I'm going to compare it to Analog A Hate Story which had way more effort and had some cool ideas and was honestly damn good. It got some press but not much it sold decently some people liked it and talked about it boom, but if she slept with game journalists then when people started talking about it, mentioning it resulted in people getting silenced and comments deleted. Isn't this just the streisand effect and not everyone just randomly decided to hate this one women and not all the other women indie devs.

  389. Mamabug says

    I have really enjoyed reading this post along with the Albion's Seed one, but then I am a sucker for a good G.U.T. of History and Sociology. I am curious about your take on the red/blue religious divide as Catholic/Protestant (especially given the large evangelical and Mormon influence in today's red circles and the 'blueness' of much modern-day Catholicism). I would think it to be a historical accident of English politics trickling down to the colonies, but then you point to similar splits in Mexico, Germany, and Russia that have different histories and dynamics. Is there something unique in Catholic or Protestant thinking that causes the alignment or is it purely that the Catholic (or Orthodox in the case of Russia) were aligned with the historical power structure up until about 500 years ago.

  390. says

    @Ken in NJ:

    people they have duped into participating by leading them to believe it's about something else,

    We keep coming back to this, and this is where the AGG side makes no sense to me: if 5 people are on a march because they want to go to lunch, and they con 95 people into joining them bc – ha, ha! – "it's a nice day for a walk", then how can we say that the 95 people who are enjoying a nice walk were duped because they have no interest in lunch?

    Unless a movement has a pledge and a blood oath, then it's not about any one thing. It's about what each participant is doing.

  391. Pluviann says

    @kevin Many of the 'Red Team' or GGers are firm that you can't lump in the haters and death threats with GG – even if they sign off every threat with 'this threat is on behalf of GG'. Those guys don't count because they're just trolls high-jacking an otherwise noble hashtag.
    So how can you say that screencap shows a SJW? By GG logic, that person hasn't declared a side, and even if they did it wouldn't count because trolls are default excluded.

  392. sorrykb says

    @ObamaStoleMyGames: Good points. And, Brazilians can very painful. I'm just sayin…
    @Max: :-)

  393. Ken in NJ says

    nobody would of given a shit about this game if it wasn't for the sleeping with gaming journalists who reported on her game

    The lie that wouldn't die

  394. Castaigne says

    @Anon:

    there are trolls on both sides doxxing and issuing threats.

    You assume that I don't consider trolls to be serious in their 'doxxing' and issuing of threats. You are incorrect. I consider the so-called 'trolls' to be quite serious in their actions.

    The SJW are a threat because they want to eliminate creative freedom

    No, I don't believe that.

    If you're a small dev, and some SJW journalists decide you're a misogynistic piece of shit, kiss any positive coverage goodbye. You might not get any coverage at all.

    I'm…failing to see the problem here. It's as if you have an expectation that you should receive positive coverage. And my response is "Why the fuck are you entitled to positive coverage?"

    – Journalist perceives dev as a misogynistic piece of shit, thus negative coverage? OK.
    – Journalist had a bad day yesterday and decides to take it out on the dev? OK.
    – Journalist hates the fact that you were born on a Wednesday? OK.

    As far as I'm concerned, a journalist can give negative coverage for whatever reason they desire, because freedom of speech. They're not required to give ANYONE positive coverage. The only reason I could see them doing so is by creating a LEGAL MANDATE with a GOOD COVERAGE QUOTA – and good luck on that.

    Can you see how these might be interpreted as pressure tactics designed to force their point of view on people who might not want it?

    Not by anyone with even a basic rational outlook, no.

    If you don't accept them, you're an adolescent who doesn't make meaningful games

    Hmmm. I'm making, let's just say I'm a dev making Call of Duty Spec Ops BROHEIM XVI. Shooter city, brah! With frat soldiers! Against….Teletubbies! (Yes, I'm being silly.)
    Aaaaand, I get told that by a bunch of journalists. I'm an adolescent who who doesn't make meaningful games.
    My reactions: "And?" followed by "I give no fucks."
    And I continue to develop and market my game. If there's a market for it, and the game is good enough, it'll get bought. Screw meaningful, I'm here to make money. That's a rational response to that.

    =====

    @Clark:

    Third, even if a dozen (or a thousand) GGers have said this, I will cut them slack, because they feel like they're under assault.

    Ah. Special rules and forgiveness for groups you support.
    Yeah, I don't do that. I have no interest in playing favorites.

    I disagree. I've stepped in there once, to look at Nrx chat, and it had zero resemblance to the (somewhat) thoughtful Nrx people I know on blogs, twitter, etc. 8chan is a pit. It appeals to the lowest common denominator, across all groups.

    And this is where it shows you have no understanding of groups whatsoever. Essentially, this is what you are saying:
    – "The League of the South is full of sterling intellectual individuals, nothing to do with the base KKK or Stormfront denizens who claim common cause."
    – "These intellectual pure Leninist types are the real deal, nothing like these Stalinist or Maoist proles who cluster over here.

    It doesn't matter which particular group or person or people you identify with. It's still all White Nationalists. It's still all Communists.

    It's still all NeoReactionaries. And GamerGaters.

    And you, and the people you prefer to follow, are doing absolutely shit-all to disavow and exclude the bad elements. Remember, silence is acceptance and support.

  395. Ken in NJ says

    if 5 people are on a march because they want to go to lunch, and they con 95 people into joining them bc – ha, ha! – "it's a nice day for a walk", then how can we say that the 95 people who are enjoying a nice walk were duped because they have no interest in lunch?

    If 5 people are trying to ruin a charity's telephone fund raising drive by jamming up their phone lines, and they trick 95 people into joining them in their repeated calls bc – ha ha – "that charity is actually run by neo-Nazis who funnel most of the money to themselves", then how can we say that the 95 people who are righteously shutting down the Nazis were duped because they have no interest in participating in a Denial of Service attack?

  396. says

    @Pluviann:

    Many of the 'Red Team' or GGers are firm that you can't lump in the haters and death threats with GG – even if they sign off every threat with 'this threat is on behalf of GG'.

    First, I'd like to say something:

    I'm going to rape every woman in California. This threat is on behalf of Pluviann.

    Second, I've got a question:

    Pluviann: aren't you ashamed of yourself, bc you're part of a movement that's making threats?

    …or, perhaps, do you see the flaw in the logic here?

  397. Taliesyn says

    There's a much better article on the entire 'entitlement culture war' on Free Thought Blogs that, unlike Clark's attempt to defame the anti-GamerGate crowd ('One of these five women is a pathological liar, but I don't want to say who, so I guess you'll just have to assume they all are!'), is not only reasonably objective but doesn't attempt to use high-school level debate fact-clouding to make its point. Bit of warning, however – it makes Clark's magnum opus above look small.

  398. Kevin says

    @Pluviann: I suppose it's possible that that was just a shit-stirring troll with no allegiance to either side, rather than an anti-GG/SJW false-flag. But either way, it definitely wasn't a legit pro-GG.

  399. Ken in NJ says

    If 5 people are trying to ruin a charity's telephone fund raising drive by jamming up their phone lines, and they trick 95 people into joining them in their repeated calls bc – ha ha – "that charity is actually run by neo-Nazis who funnel most of the money to themselves", then how can we say that the 95 people who are righteously shutting down the Nazis were duped because they have no interest in shutting down a legitimate charity?

    Sorry about that, for some reason I don't seem to be able to edit the prior post

  400. Pluviann says

    @Clark, you misunderstand me. That's the exact flaw in Kevin's logic that I was pointing out! You can't say: 'Those haters aren't real GGers' and then follow up with: 'But these haters are definitely real SJWs.' Haters are either in or out or the argument on both sides.

  401. Matt W says

    Third, even if a dozen (or a thousand) GGers have said this, I will cut them slack, because they feel like they're under assault.

    Brother, I'm trying to read your words with an open mind. I really am. I read the Philip Wythe piece and thought that it had some really good things to say about how this discussion has been carried out. (Though it's unfortunate that it's been used as a battle banner against the values that Wythe supports.) I read thezoepost and delved into the #burgersandfries (haha, five guys, get it? haha, so droll) chat log; came away with the impression that Ms. Quinn probably did treat Mr. Gjoni somewhat badly, but that unleashing the hoards of hell on her was an altogether disproportionate response. And his subsequent actions — egging the hoard on, being entirely recalcitrant about the violent effects of his actions — belie his supposed high-minded concern for the state of indie gaming. He was out for revenge. Those IRC chat logs (shudder) make one doubt the value of the continuation of humanity. But, as you've said above, this is all beside the point — stage one of the drama. From this point, it's pretty clear that the forces of darkness got their hands on Gjoni's tale of woe, shunted him out of the way ("cuck f****t beta") massaged it for maximum damage, then carefully managed how it was utilized to inflict said damage not only on Ms. Quinn, but on the whole edifice of feminism, 'sjw's', etc. And of course, when Ms. Sarkeesian and Mattie Brice and Jenn Frank and Brianna Wu, etc got sucked into the maelstrom, all pretense has clearly gone out the window.

    I simply don't understand what definition of 'assault' you're using here. Are you saying that the 'greys' (aside: interesting assumption that techno- and -libertarian go together. I'm an engineer and a blue or pink or whatever. Most (not all) engineers and scientists I've known and worked with are pretty progressive as well. This is purely anecdotal, but I'd be interested to see how the correlation works out). Anyway, are you saying that the 'greys' and 'reds' are under assault merely because they're on the losing side of the so-called culture war, and that this (losing) justifies the tactics they're using? You've put yourself in the position where you're downplaying actual assault — threats of violence, vandalism, fraud for the purpose of damaging reputations, harassment — while elevating some amorphous psychological pressure exerted by culture on behalf of values like inclusivism, justice, and equality. It's probably because I'm blinkered, operating as I am from within the social justice milieu, but I find it hard to sympathize with someone opposing these values, though my overriding concern for compassion insists that I try.

  402. Mac says

    Can I confirm that all of the idiotic statements by @A.Nagy are part of a SJW false flag operation. He is one of our finest agents. Skilled in dropping into forum debates and making contradictory and annoying posts under the GG name before disappearing before anyone can really get into the 'And, what you say?'. He is a genius. Unfortunately, he is is fairly indistinguishable from the average GG footsoldier. We have asked him 'brilliant darling, just bigger', but it seems the GGers always equal their satirical versions.

  403. tweell says

    To Obamastolemygames

    1. You'll have to ask the FBI. Geographical distance and borders do make threats less credible, or at least more difficult to fulfill. My apologies for thinking this was obvious to the average person.

    2. The threat was to blow up the forum. You are less informed than I had expected a Popehat reader to be. Ah well, I should not expect intelligence from a SJW trying to be cute.

    3. Again, ask the FBI. Duh.

    4. Another attempt to belittle while showing your ignorance. If you cannot calculate travel times needed, why are you missing elementary school?

    5. Now we enter the realm of science fiction, with a jet pack capable of reaching Utah from Brazil. Alternatively, fantasy, with the Ship that Sails over Land and Sea. Fourth-graders are laughing at your attempts to be incisive.

    6. That the FBI declared the threat not credible is public information. Flights of fantasy I leave to you.

    7. Is the misinterpretation here wilful or idiocy? Eh, never impute to conspiracy what can be chalked up to incompetence. SJW's often cry wolf with respect to death threats. Sometimes even with FBI investigations involved. I would give you many links, but that would cause this post to be caught in the spam filter. Google it yourself. As to conspiracies, the http://groups.google.com/group/GameJournoPros screenshots say quite a bit. And if you can give me any SJW who was threatened and then actually harmed, I would be quite surprised.

    Here's a quote from James Fudge (from the above group)

    "And yet all video game outlets, from GiantBomb to Kotaku to Destructoid to the Escapist to Reddit all the qy through to 4chan's /v/ do their continual best efforts to simply not bring this up, both in official outlets and, in the cases of GB and /v/, by deleting threads about it, or in the case of Reddit downvoting it and making the links not work."

    This probably would have blown over like the insignificant story that it was, but SJW heavy-handed censorship made it big. Silly nerds, we didn't pay attention to who was running those outlets, until they decided that only their 'truth' was allowed.

    I'm out of here, feel free to declare victory. My time is better spent elsewhere.

  404. Max says

    @Matt W
    I'm with you. Tomorrow I will sadly have to return to running my tech Start-up. Funders and investors demand I do some proper technological work. And I'm solid progressive and so are the geek friends of mine who declare a preference.

    Clark decides we don't build stuff. I'd argue with him further about that but I have to go to sleep now so I can wake early to build stuff. Today I confirmed a million pound deal. Yesterday I was close. A few hours of arguing with wrong people on the internet! This is how I celebrate! Oi! Hail Marx (or Eris, I forget which).

  405. Pluviann says

    @kevin; I agree with you that it definitely wasn't a legit 'actually cares about ethics in journalism'. But I find that some people arguing for GG say 'We have no leaders and we have no boundaries and we are a lose affiliation of people with no fixed aim because we are all individuals' and then others follow up with 'Except for those guys, those guys are definitely not inside our group.' But if your group has no boundaries and no aims, how can say that someone isn't in it?

    I guess you have to judge them by their actions which means investing a lot of time and effort into finding out what those actions are, since they're happening all over the place. So most people go with first impressions. And from first impressions, it seems a lot like GGers top activities are: threatening indivdual women who have been the targets for certain misogynists for a long time, threatening other random people who they feel have insulted them; emailing advertisers to pull out of websites that they feel have insulted them, and reassuring each other on twitter that they definitely are a most diverse, welcoming and non-harrassing group of people. And something about ethics?

    FWIW, this is a problem that has troubled me a lot about feminists as well, and I find it very interesting to see how much GG is replicating the problems and tactics of SJ communities.

  406. sorrykb says

    We're gonna have to rename the No True Scotsman fallacy.
    But before we begin working on that I'm gonna go build stuff. Starting with a sandwich.

  407. Ken in NJ says

    One of these groups is not like the others. The first three are all actual groups, with lists of members, and leadership who can kick members out if they fail to conform to a certain set of beliefs.

    A fair point, but not fatal to the point I'm making.

    If there are a group of protesters marching around on a public sidewalk carrying "Gay marriage now" signs and yelling "equal rights for all", and Mr Racist McBigot starts marching around with them shouting "Fags will burn in hell" they have no power to "kick him out of their organization"

    And yet, the next day at the general store, he shouldn't be surprised when his neighbor Bigot McRacist gives him the stinkeye.

    "No, no!" He protests, "I was fighting the good fight, I swear. I wasn't shouting for equal rights. Don't assume I agree with their message just because I chose to stand with them as they marched!"

    If your boss sees you at Occupy Wall Street claiming that you most definitely are an Occupier, the fact that you were carrying a sign that said "not ALL corporations are bad" is unlikely to sway him from the obvious conclusion, no matter how many times you tell him "no, no, it's unfair to judge me based on my membership in that group" despite the fact that they have no list of members, and have no authority to "kick you out"

  408. Fasolt says

    @Clark. Congratulations on authoring a top 10 most commented post that only took 2 days to get on the list. I was having trouble keeping up with the replies.

  409. says

    Thank you for that, Clark. I enjoyed it very much — even the bits I didn't agree with.

    I've been active online for nearly thirty years now and have never received a death threat, not counting in actual gameplay. From this, I have to deduce I am a low-status woman.

    I have been accused of knob-slobbering in an argument, though. Can I say knob-slobbering?

  410. Kevin says

    @Pluviann: I think you must not have looked at the screenshot closely enough. I'm not saying the poster is not a legit GG just in a "no true scotsman" sense, I mean if you look at the user IDs it's clear that a single individual is sockpuppeting as multiple people, having a conversation with himself, simulating GGers plotting a harassment campaign. It's an undeniable false flag.

    It's an open question whether it was run by an SJW, or just by a unaligned troll in it for the lulz, but either way it was definitely not a legit pro-GG.

  411. Pluviann says

    @kevin Unless… we use the same logic as in the argument: 'women who claim to have received death threats are just making it up to make themselves look good and gain sympathy' – now we can say that this is a GGer who is making up a false flag to create plausible deniability for when they really do commit harassment!

  412. Pluviann says

    @kevin OK, I am going to bed now, and want to say that I don't mean to be a dick to you. Especially if GG is something you care about, because I know there are a lot of people who have their heart in it. I am just part frustrated and part amused and part saddened by the bad arguments that are getting used.

    Forgot to say: in the previous comment my point was not just that he was 'no true scotsman' but that 'Scotland' hasn't even been defined in the case of GG!

  413. Eric says

    Clark,

    I agree with you that at this point, GamerGate is a blood feud between two different tribes with little connection to what it is supposedly about. For proof, you just need to read the comments right here on PopeHat.

    However, your take on the German Empire's Kulturkampf is flawed by factual inaccuracies in your attempt to push conservative hot topic buttons. You write:

    "One one side you had Otto von Bismark: a Protestant, a man who wanted government centralized, a leader with disdain for regional differences, a bureaucrat who created the first welfare state (Wikipedia's words, not mine), expelled the Jesuits, secularized the practice of marriage, threatened to arrest clergy who took political stances contrary to his own, radically expanded government schools, created a government run retirement system, and more.

    On the other side you had people who were for lower taxes, smaller government, regional differences, Catholic doctrine, etc."

    This is a gross oversimplification, which you would see if you carefully read the entire Wikipedia page you cite, or even better the German page, which goes into more detail. The side for less government, less taxes and more political, personal and economic freedom (i.e. the freedom to shaft their workers) where and are the German Liberals, who initially supported the Kulturkampf enthusiastically but later withdrew their support over concerns about too many fundamental rights being violated (yes, really !). They disliked the Catholic church on principle for being backward (and as far as I can tell, they still do), and in particular for supporting the Catholic worker movement and having feudal ideas about the responsibility of employers towards their employees.

    The Catholic church for its part didn't particularly care about the size of government or taxes or regional autonomy – what they cared about was the state encroaching on territory they considered their turf (marriage and schooling, registering births and deaths, etc.). It should perhaps also be noted that civil marriage was not an invention of Bismarck – it was first introduced to the French occupied German territories in 1798, repealed in 1815, and then reintroduced in 1855 in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg. The first couple thus married was a Baptist pastor, who could not have married otherwise because he and his wife did not belong to the official state church. In short, this was a spat between two competing monopolists, not between a vicious Protestant oppressor vs. freedom loving Catholics. (Also note that conservative Protestants didn't like any of this either, for the same reasons the Catholics didn't).

    As to the German welfare state – it was created by Bismarck to woo the German working class away from the Socialists on the one hand, and to destroy the existing social security offered by trade unions and the Catholic worker movement on the other. In his own words: „Mein Gedanke war, die arbeitenden Klassen zu gewinnen, oder soll ich sagen zu bestechen, den Staat als soziale Einrichtung anzusehen, die ihretwegen besteht und für ihr Wohl sorgen möchte“
    – Otto von Bismarck: Gesammelte Werke (Friedrichsruher Ausgabe) 1924/1935, Band 9, S.195/196

    Translation: "My idea was to win over the working classes, or should I say bribe, to see the state as a social institution that exists for their benefit and wants to care for their welfare".

    I applaud Herr von Bismarck for his honesty and common sense (the "bribe" part). Note that the Socialists where rather pissed about the whole thing, since it basically nipped their dream of a glorious revolution of the proletariat in the bud – why risk your life when you have a pension to look forward to ?

    Long story short, the progressives of 19th century Germany have more in common with modern day American libertarians (or is that Libertarians ?) than progressives, and neither today's American liberals nor conservatives really have any equivalent – which is not surprising in the least, since it's almost 150 years ago, in a different country no less. Attempting to explain history with the biases of contemporary (American) politics doesn't really work.

  414. Yon Anony Mouse says

    Oh how I love comments…

    How dare you accuse me of tribalism, sir! That's just the sort of thing I've come to expect from you monsters on the other side!

  415. Kevin says

    @Pluviann OK, I gotta give you credit for coming up with the idea of a meta-false-flag… or would it be double-false-flag? That's legitimately creative. Mad props.

    But come, that's a giant stretch and you know it.

    As to your second comment, GG is definitely not "something I care about". I'm not a gamer, I've never read gaming journalism, and I care less than zero about indie game devs' sex lives. I DO care about the broader culture war, however, and I care about keeping the combatants in that war honest.

  416. Corporal Lint says

    My word counter claims that there have been 63,436 words spilled in these comments. That means this comment thread is now slightly longer than Lord of the Flies, a work it greatly resembles.

  417. richard40 says

    Good article. On thing you might add though is there are really 3 teams, a liberal/leftist team (you called them blue/pink), a conservative/reactionary team (you called them red/grey), and a libertarian team. The liberal vs conservative teams are the major factions (since they control the respective major parties), but have subfactions, based on whether the subfactions can live with majorities, or must totally crush the opposition. So the conservatives can tolerate liberals and libertarians, but the reactionaries cant. The liberals can tolerate conservatives and libertarians, but the leftists cant. Whenever either liberals or conservatives become too ascendant, their intolerant subfactions demand they crush the other side. When conservatives were ascendant, the reactionary faction wanted the liberals totally crushed, using anti communism and imorality to do it. Now that the liberals are ascendant their leftist faction wants the conservatves totally crushed, using their cultural shaming and racism/sexism charges to do it. Historically, the conservatives often did better among voters, while the liberals had more influence among elites, like academia, the press, and entertainment.

    The libertarian team is much smaller, and has various issues where they may agree with either the liberal or conservative factions, but normally always distrust either the leftist or reactionary subfactions. As such, they generally want the 2 major factions balanced, so they can gain their goals by siding with one or the other to tip the balance. Because of this, they often tend to side with whichever faction seems weaker at the time. So during bush, when conservatives seemed ascendant, they sided with liberals, while now that liberals seem ascendant, they side with conservatives. What makes this worse is the liberal faction has not just gained dominance under Obama (and among areas where they already had advantages, among the elite opinion makers, they had total dominance), but even worse the leftist subfaction is becomming the dominant one and wants to crush the conservatives, and even the libertarians, which is why the libertarians are now almost universally siding with the conservatives, until many liberals falsely think they are conservatives or even reationaries (and forgot that when the Moral Majority was winning, the libertarians sided with the liberals). I suspect many gamers have a libertarian bent (since many are independent, techno savvy, loners), and thus when the reactionary moral majority was after video games, they sided with the liberals, but now that the extreme leftists are going after video games, they are siding with the conservatives.

  418. Jacob Schmidt says

    First, I'd like to say something:

    I'm going to rape every woman in California. This threat is on behalf of Pluviann.

    Second, I've got a question:

    Pluviann: aren't you ashamed of yourself, bc you're part of a movement that's making threats?

    …or, perhaps, do you see the flaw in the logic here?

    I see someone conflating "individual" with "group"; when, exactly, has Pluviann a) benefited from said rape threats, b) dismissed those rape threats as "cries for attention," c) denied those rape threats being made at all, or d) asserted that the rape threats were made by the women of California themselves to garner sympathy? I can see a whole lot of that coming from many, many GG people.

    It's an open question whether it was run by an SJW, or just by a unaligned troll in it for the lulz, but either way it was definitely not a legit pro-GG.

    I don't see how "willing to engage in sock-puppetry to support own position" and "GG aligned" are mutually exclusive.

  419. Moral Fashionista says

    > Gay marriage is one–there is no non-laughable secular argument against it

    Marriage is there to allow couples to raise a family and the laws surrounding it aren't particularly well-suited to the needs of homosexuals. Marriage has become a status symbol of late and it's true that the hetero population has been abusing it for tax advantages that were originally intended for families, so a better sort of reform would be to retarget the relevant laws around family and let people, rather than government bureaucrats, define their own relationships.

    Right now, I have lots of questions about how the law will deal with things like "common law" marriages. How do we distinguish mere roommates from those who are more? There are a thousand small details, everything from hospital visitation to insurance, but instead of proceeding thoughtfully and reforming laws to make sense, we use a blunt instrument to capture a point for the culture wars.

    Suffice it to say, I'm with Clark and I think there's more of an underdog bias than you realize, because I don't want anyone going out of control in the way we've seen some people go lately in terms of policing disagreement, even in the literal sense.

  420. Moral Fashionista says

    > I see someone conflating "individual" with "group"; when, exactly, has Pluviann a) benefited from said rape threats, b) dismissed those rape threats as "cries for attention," c) denied those rape threats being made at all, or d) asserted that the rape threats were made by the women of California themselves to garner sympathy? I can see a whole lot of that coming from many, many GG people.

    How does any GG person benefit from rape threats, exactly? If you visit the Reddit, they explicitly disavow doxxing and threats of every kind and have called out anyone treading close to that line in the threads I've seen.

    Just for the record, I have personally faced harassment in the form of pornographic mailbombs, threats and insults of every kind, and even sexual harassment at work, of the "hands down pants" variety. So I'm no stranger to that, but I find smearing people by association with things they haven't personally engaged in quite reprehensible and dishonest as a debate tactic. In each case, I dealt with the perps through lawful channels, to the point of getting the hands-down-pants guy fired. That's how you deal with it, not going around online using it to tar anyone you disagree with by bringing up actions of other people you apply the same label to. We should call that the 'labelist' debate tactic in true ironic fashion. "You have reprehensible_label! Your arguments are swine!" could sum up far too many posts in this thread.

    For whatever it's worth, I find threats and such disgusting and I have not personally engaged in anything of the sort, though I have no doubt that you will pick some bad label to apply to me. I have a mind capable of assigning fault to more than one part, so I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence I've seen that maybe there are non-angels on each side. Therefore, I will be happy to call out anyone and everyone who I see engaging in fraudulent labelist tactics.

  421. Kevin says

    @Jacob Schmidt

    I don't see how "willing to engage in sock-puppetry to support own position" and "GG aligned" are mutually exclusive.

    Huh? The sock-puppetry was not to "support [their] own position", it was sock-puppetry to make GG look BAD. Why would anyone aligned with GG, however nebulously, want to intentionally make GG (however they define it) look BAD?

    when, exactly, has Pluviann a) benefited from said rape threats

    When has GG benefited from rape threats? Every rape threat made in their name discredits them, and turns people against them.

  422. The Wanderer says

    Something I find mildly amusing:

    I consider myself a gamer.

    I would also describe myself as strongly in favor of social justice, to the point of sympathizing with the efforts of some of the people I've seen labelled as "social justice warriors" in the past – even as I simultaneously cringe at some of the tactics I've seen such people use.

    Prior to today, I was vaguely aware that there was some event going on known as "Gamersgate", that it maybe involved games journalism somehow, and that it didn't seem to be dying down quickly.

    I have learned more about GamersGate from this post and its comments than I had ever previously known.

    …and yet I still don't think I know enough about it to actually have an opinion on it.

  423. Jacob Schmidt says

    Right now, I have lots of questions about how the law will deal with things like "common law" marriages. How do we distinguish mere roommates from those who are more?

    We don't. 'tis rather the point.

    How does any GG person benefit from rape threats, exactly?

    Do I actually need to explain how ideological groups benefit from ideological opponents being subjected to silencing tactics like rape threats?

    Incidentally, you left points b through d unaddressed, and I find those much more telling than anything. Even the page dedicated to documenting harassment against gamer gate supporters frequently dismisses harassment against others.

    So I'm no stranger to that, but I find smearing people by association with things they haven't personally engaged in quite reprehensible and dishonest as a debate tactic.

    Association, in this case, is self selected: a whole lot of people looked at a harassment shitstorm and said, "Yeah, I want to join that group." I find that telling of one's priorities in and of itself. More common than the harassment is the denial of severity, the character assassination of the targets of harassment ("She's just doing it for attention," "It wouldn't have happened if she weren't a bitch,"), the outright denial of the harassment in the first place, etc. And when I see this coming from the people ostensibly against harassment, it becomes clear that a large portion are only pretending to hold that position.

    I have a mind capable of assigning fault to more than one part, so I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence I've seen that maybe there are non-angels on each side.

    I find it funny when I can simply recycle arguments I've already made:

    "I generally find concentration more important than individual deeds: campaigns are worse than isolated instances. Screaming "both sides" might be (and, in this case, is) accurate, but it's a very trivial, not at all telling bit of accuracy. It's about as convincing as yelling "Hitler was a christian, too."

    The sock-puppetry was not to "support [their] own position", it was sock-puppetry to make GG look BAD. Why would anyone aligned with GG, however nebulously, want to intentionally make GG (however they define it) look BAD?

    This assumes that there is no one on GG's side willing to engage in that behaviour. Unfortunately, we know that's not true. All we know is that it's a sockpuppet; it may either be a GG aligned person, sockpuppetting their own opinions, or an unaligned GG person, stirring up shit.

  424. Stella says

    I'm coming in late, but I had to respond to this: "The dynamic of the threats you receive, and the threats received by women, are wholly different. We live in a culture where mothers teach their daughters to take such threats seriously – they are inculcated with the reality of these dangers every night on the news where there's another report of a woman abducted and raped in a dark alley."

    Mothers might teach their daughters this (mine didn't) but they should *stop* because they are making their daughters paranoid and filling them with fear that will make their lives worse for no reason. Men are much more likely to be attacked or killed by strangers. Women are usually attacked or killed by family–similarly when women attack or kill others, its usually family.

    A teacher of mine, when he was a teenager, was jumped by a group of boys (from a different ethnicity) and mercilessly beaten. That doesn't really happen to women. Women may be more likely to be raped by force by a stranger on a dark street, but being forcibly raped by a stranger on a dark street is very, very rare.

    This might suggest that men should be *more* worried by anonymous threats from strangers. But that's probably saying too much.

  425. Ken in NJ says

    @Kevin

    Huh? The sock-puppetry was not to "support [their] own position", it was sock-puppetry to make GG look BAD. Why would anyone aligned with GG, however nebulously, want to intentionally make GG (however they define it) look BAD?

    Well, let's see. you're here showing screenshots of it, claiming that it demonstrates the wrongdoing of the SJWs. So the existence of that transaction allows people (like you, for example) to go around to different forums (like Popehat, for example) and say things like "See?! Look how bad those SJWs are!"

    Much like the supposed benefit that some of the #gamergate folks claim Sarkeesian and Quinn would get by faking death threats against themselves.

    It seems much more plausible that someone would think "I should go a fake up some sockpuppetry and then "discover it" than "I should go fake up some death threats and then call the FBI to report them", but we'll never know for sure. Personally, I'm willing to accept that it's from some anti-gg jerk. But then I come to the inevitable response of "so what? call me when they start forcing people to abandon their careers or leave their homes because of harassment , stalking, and threats."

  426. Ken in NJ says

    How does any GG person benefit from rape threats, exactly?

    How does a person who is trying to scare, intimidate, or annoy into silence benefit when the person they are trying to scare, intimidate, or annoy into silence receives death threats? Gee, I dunno. That's a head scratcher, it is

  427. Ken in NJ says

    When has GG benefited from rape threats? Every rape threat made in their name discredits them, and turns people against them.

    You could have fooled me, because there have been plenty of really horrific and well publicized rape threats, and #gamergate is still going strong. Hell, they just got a big boost in the form of Mike "why should I care that women get raped?" Cernovich joinig the movement. So yeah, it may alienate many normal people, but normal people aren't the ones the channers have been working into a lather – the misogynistic neckbeards they've been whipping into a frenzy have no problem at all with "those fucking extremist SJW bitches who are trying to destroy gaming as I know it" getting death and rape threats. Hell, just look at the apologism in this thread

    I don't think anyone would disagree that every rape threat, every threat of murder, or arson, every incident of doxxing, makes it **that** much more likely that other, less brave people will stay quiet rather than speak out in support and risk becoming targets themselves.

  428. Kevin says

    [Scene: The GamerGate Command Center (internal)]

    General Gator: We must figure out a way to silence these feminists and SJW's. Suggestions, gentlemen?

    Lieutenant Cheetodust: How about we threaten to rape and murder them?

    General Gator: No! That will just draw enemy fire onto our position, and draw neutral parties into the war against us! We must be more subtle and stealthy than that!

    Lieutenant Cheetodust: But we can always just deflect the counterattack by claiming it was a false flag, can't we? Have the operations team wear SJW uniforms?

    General Gator: No! Nobody will believe that "false flag" BS – it sounds just like something a 9/11 truther would say! Give me some better options, dammit!

    Captain Fappington: I have an idea. How about we prepare the battlespace with a false-false-flag operation? Issue some rape-and-death-threats, ostensibly under our own flag, but have the operations team wear SJW uniforms UNDERNEATH their GG uniforms. Then we can "expose" it as a false flag, despite it not actually being a false flag.

    General Gator: [chews on cigar, brooding] : Captain, I like the way you think.

    [/scene]

  429. Moral Fashionista says

    > Do I actually need to explain how ideological groups benefit from ideological opponents being subjected to silencing tactics like rape threats?

    Yes, because the Streisand Effect makes it moronic. I didn't argue with your other points because it's not productive. I find it odd that you seem to dismiss the possibility of things being somewhere in the middle, truth-wise. I can believe she's been harassed, simply because I don't know of anyone who has been internet-famous who was not harassed. That does not excuse it, but I absolutely will not use one wrong to excuse another.

    > Association, in this case, is self selected: a whole lot of people looked at a harassment shitstorm and said, "Yeah, I want to join that group."

    I have explicitly denounced any sort of harassment. You don't get to decide what other people stand for. It's very convenient that you can just say "oh, they're all $label, someone with $label harassed people, so nobody should be $label any more." Which is absurd, because you could just as easily be tarred by applying it in reverse. By what you say, if I were insensible, I would have to assume you stood for unethical journalism, trading sexual favors for workplace benefits, lying and hypocrisy, among other things. But we agree that's dumb, I hope?

    I've read the articles. One group put out a lot of facts, screen captures, research, etc. which is trivially verifiable. The other group put out a lot of coordinated, emotional responses and engaged in mass censorship on some of the biggest sites on the net.

    Which side should a thinking person believe here?

  430. Ken in NJ says

    Scene: The GamerGate Command Center (internal)]

    OMFG that's so hilarious. I realize now how ridiculous it is to think that the #gamergate folks would condone rapethreats, death threats, stalking and doxxing. Awesome! Well done! I'm convinced

    Actress Felicia Day Opens Up About GamerGate Fears, Has Her Private Details Exposed Minutes Later

    Apparently those uppity SJW bitches can't stop faking attacks on themselves. I mean, your little vignette demonstrated how ridiculous it would be for the folks behind #gamergate to encourage stuff like that, right?

  431. Jacob Schmidt says

    Yes, because the Streisand Effect makes it moronic.[1] I didn't argue with your other points because it's not productive. I find it odd that you seem to dismiss the possibility of things being somewhere in the middle, truth-wise.[2]

    1) I generally find that people making rape threats are, in some ways, moronic, yes. It's hardly a massively destructive strategy, though: gamergate is still going, despite the massive amount of death threats.

    2) This is entirely a non-sequitur; nowhere have I dismissed any such possibility, and such a possibility does not relate to what you've responded, here.

    It's very convenient that you can just say "oh, they're all $label, someone with $label harassed people, so nobody should be $label any more." Which is absurd, because you could just as easily be tarred by applying it in reverse.[1] By what you say, if I were insensible, I would have to assume you stood for unethical journalism, trading sexual favors for workplace benefits, lying and hypocrisy, among other things. But we agree that's dumb, I hope?[2]

    1) Could I? By what label do I identify by which one would tar me? I'm genuinely curious.

    2) Sure; I haven't joined a group whose only major accomplishment was unethical journalism, et al. I don't belong to a group whose only major accomplishment was unethical journalism, et al. while dismissing or minimizing incidents of such.

    Plus, there's the fact that most of that stuff (esp. "trading sexual favours") hasn't even happened.

    Captain Fappington: I have an idea. How about we prepare the battlespace with a false-false-flag operation? Issue some rape-and-death-threats, ostensibly under our own flag, but have the operations team wear SJW uniforms UNDERNEATH their GG uniforms. Then we can "expose" it as a false flag, despite it not actually being a false flag.

    What the hell are you talking about? I'm not sure who you imagine implied a false-false-flag operation was underfoot.

  432. Kevin says

    @Jacob Schmidt

    I'm not sure who you imagine implied a false-false-flag operation was underfoot.

    @Pluviann did, right here.

  433. Moral Fashionista says

    Well, if you're against GG, then it would seem that you're for this: http://i.imgur.com/MeNQuTe.png Just because you don't claim a label doesn't mean you won't get one. And for the record, I haven't said I'm pro-GG either. There are certainly things I do not like (rape threats are deplorable, for one example, I think we agree on that much).

    Among other things. I see you saying "hasn't happened" in a conculsory way, but I've seen more than enough evidence by now to conclude that at least some allegations are credible. Also, there was at least one outright admission. They claimed it was after the fact, in spite of evidence it was before. I find this … convenient.

    The fact that someone had their private details exposed "in minutes" after a story is suspicious, but not necessarily proof of anything. It usually takes a while to look that stuff up, but it would depend on how trivially googlable it was, I suppose.

  434. Jacob Schmidt says

    @Pluviann did, right here.

    You seem to have taken mocking as a serious suggestion.

    Just because you don't claim a label doesn't mean you won't get one

    We were discussing claimed labels: "Association, in this case, is self selected: a whole lot of people looked at a harassment shitstorm and said, 'Yeah, I want to join that group.'"

    I see you saying "hasn't happened" in a conculsory way, but I've seen more than enough evidence by now to conclude that at least some allegations are credible.

    Yes, I conclude that the vast majority of any sort of allegations made by gamergate are nonsense: in nearly every case I've bothered to go digging, be it about Quinn trading sexual favours, Quinn's dispute with TFYC, Leigh Alexander supposedly "ruining careers," etc, the allegation has turned out to be bullshit. GG's major accomplishment after harassment and threats is bullshit artistry.

  435. Kevin says

    @Jacob Schmidt

    You seem to have taken mocking as a serious suggestion.

    Either A) It was a serious suggestion, or B) You, and Pluviann, are implicitly conceding that the cited example is a legitimate case of anti-GG's (or trolls) doing a false-flag against GG.

    I see no third option. Which is it?

  436. Sam says

    @Clark

    In my case, I called out Zoe Quinn as a sociopath and a liar because, having read the chat logs at Eron Gjoni's The Zoe Post, I see absolutely no other possibility than that Zoe is both a serial liar and someone who meets the DSM definition of "sociopath".

    Absolutely no other possibility? Really Clark? You conclude that it is entirely impossible that the entire thing, or parts of it, were fabricated or doctored, or rendered out of context to give a specific impression? Entirely impossible that it was some complex piece of performance art that we haven't yet understood (etc). Why the lack of skepticism, which you use so generously against other claims?

    There are myriad other possibilities — and frankly, I don't think you are qualified to diagnose someone as a sociopath even in an ideal environment, much less from a hostile presentation of uncorroborated and unverifiable evidence. Dropping in DSM as a keyword doensn't make you a qualified Psych, nor would it be responsible for a qualified Psych to make any such diagnosis without personal contact with a potential patient.

    Using "she didn't deny it" as further proof of claims that might not merit a response (eg, when did you stop beating your wife) is just more lack of critical thinking.

    Very very sloppy thinking and reading, Clark.

  437. Jacob Schmidt says

    Either A) It was a serious suggestion, or B) You, and Pluviann, are implicitly conceding that the cited example is a legitimate case of anti-GG's (or trolls) doing a false-flag against GG.

    What bearing does Pluviann's comment have on my hypothetical concessions? That makes absolutely no sense. Pluviann can think what he or she wants, for all I care.

    I had more to write, but I've double checked the image and realized that I failed to read the 3rd post in proper detail. Definite shit stirring, likely anti-GG.

  438. Noah Callaway says

    Okay, I guess it's time for me to jump in here.

    @Clark, I apologize because I'm going to mostly be focusing on GamerGate, journalistic ethics, and misogyny, rape and death threats. I'm mostly going to skip over your core thesis of this being the product of an extremely extended culture war. As you don't find the specifics of GG/anti-GG to be interesting or worth discussion, I find the culture war example to be similarly boring. History is, for the most part, a long recounting of our various conflicts and with enough reductionism you can boil down most conflict to approximately two sides. I find it relatively easy to super-impose most "us vs them" narratives onto that template, though I don't find it to be particularly useful or instructive.

    I do absolutely agree that broader culture dialogs ("battles") are happening within the GamerGate discussion. I just don't think there's a ton of value in extrapolating beyond the last 50-80 years of society and culture. Essentially, I think the interesting part of the GamerGate phenomenon is the modern culture discussions happening, and the distant historical stuff just isn't as relevant. This, by the way, isn't a critique of what you've written, just an admission that *I personally* don't find it to be the interesting part of what's going on.

    So, this is my extended apology for being off your thesis topic, and engaging in the discussion that's happening in the weeds.

    @Self-Identifying GamerGater's
    I'm going to assume that anyone who maintains a dialog with me condemns death and rape threats in the strongest of terms. I'm further going to assume that you find the doxxing of public figures (SJW's, anti-GGers, Mike from earlier in the comments) in a situation that is intended to frighten them or to cause them harm as unacceptable behavior. I assume these things so a discussion can be had in good-faith. If you feel I'm making these assumptions in error, please let me know.

    GamerGate claims to be primarily about the journalistic integrity and ethics of video game reporting. I want to ask a question that pushes the topic from the center of @Clark's mentioned "killing field" to the edge of that field (I admit it's still on the field, but at least closer to the outer edge):

    Why are we upset at the developers and not at the journalist? Why do I know Zoe Quinn's name, and not the name of the journalist who violated ethics standards?

    In unrelated conflict of interest scandals in the journalism world we get upset at the journalist and the paper. If a journalist was treated to an expensive evening of dinner and drinks by a major developer, then proceeded to write a positive story about the developer, the outrage and vitriol would be directed at the journalist.

    When a senator is caught taking a bribe, the outrage is directed at the senator.

    We put our faith in the journalist to have a high standard of ethics and conduct. When the journalist lets us down, we should be upset at the journalist.

    So why are we talking about Zoe Quinn? Why are we talking about any developers or studio owners? Why aren't we mad at…someone at Kotaku (I honestly don't know who at Kotaku we're mad at. Please fill me in on this front)? That's who we should be mad at. That's the person that let us down. We didn't put our collective trust in Zoe Quinn, or any other game developer. We put our trust in the journalist.

    I realize @Clark's opinion is that SJW's* manipulated the story such that the battlefield would be on the killing ground of gender-issues, misogyny, and rape-threats. I disgaree. I think the battlefield ended up being there because gamer's focused their initial outrage on Zoe Quinn instead of on the published. I think they did this unconsciously and without malice because she was the female and the alleged ethical misconduct was sexually related. She was the one that was alleged to be "cheating". It seemed like the natural person who had committed a wrong.

    And anyone in Zoe Quinn's personal life and circles can judge the personal situation from that perspective. But from the perspective of gamers looking into a journalistic breach of ethics, the person that allegedly cheated on us was (person at Kotaku).

    I think early people associated with GamerGate accidentally put the battle on the "killing-field" of gender-issues themselves (boy, I gotta say, I really don't like the battle and war analogy when it comes to a societal dialogue).

    @Self-Identifying Anti-GamerGater's
    Let's make a similar assumption I made with the GamerGate side. Can we play nice and assume that the GamerGate folk are a very broad group of people with a very diverse set of opinions. Let's assume the vitriol that comes out of the worst of the GamerGate community doesn't represent the entire community, in the same way that we assume that Islam isn't represented by ISIS, and Christianity isn't represented by the KKK. Let's assume those that we're having a dialog with do not condone, and in fact condemn rape and death threats until we're proven to be wrong.

    My question for this side is more straight-forward. Can a person have a strong interest in journalistic ethics and integrity without being misogynistic? How can these opinions now be expressed without being lumped in as someone who hates women, who attacks women, and who doesn't despise anyone who sends another human being a threat of death or rape?

    * I'd love someone to define a SJW and point out a few examples. I've seen a lot of moving goalposts and vague definitions of a SJW. Can anyone pin this one down more concretely for the purposes of this discussion? Is this a label we can just drop and say "anti-GGers"?

  439. Marzipan says

    @Sam

    There are myriad other possibilities — and frankly, I don't think you are qualified to diagnose someone as a sociopath even in an ideal environment, much less from a hostile presentation of uncorroborated and unverifiable evidence. Dropping in DSM as a keyword doensn't make you a qualified Psych, nor would it be responsible for a qualified Psych to make any such diagnosis without personal contact with a potential patient.

    Particularly because DSM (since 1968) does not have "sociopath" or any verbal cognate as a diagnostic category. Since DSM-II, the closest diagnostic term has been some variant of "antisocial personality". DSM-III's revisions of the criteria for antisocial personality disorder focused more on overt behaviors, which represented Lee and Eli Robins' emphasis on reliably coded behaviors for diagnosing antisocial personality problems. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist was in part a response against this construct drift, an attempt to bring "personality" back into the disorder, which is now widely known as psychopathy in the current literature.

    Clark seems particularly prone to this kind of sloppy armchair diagnosis. At least in that post, a modicum of correct current terminology was used. But because he seems to flip-flop as to whether he's referencing DSM disorders or folk disorder concepts, I wonder if similar sloppy, internally inconsistent thinking characterizes his use of other concepts in his writings.

  440. Father Dougal says

    tl:dr version "Gamergate might be a movement started by assholes, characterized by assholery, and which still can't shake its penchant for death threats and rape threats flung towards those who dare to think thoughts that are different than said assholes' thinkifying. But its opponents appear to be lefties, so they are in the wrong here."

  441. says

    @Noah Callaway –

    (1) @GG's – An excellent point, but isn't the answer to this in the thesis of the original post that you aren't interested in? GG isn't actually about journalistic integrity, at least not primarily or exclusively, it's actually just a flareup in a larger, longer, broader culture war. If it were primarily about the journalists, they would be talking about the journalists. It's about Zoe Quinn instead because she's a closer fit for the profile of the nebulous enemy. She's (a) an SJW, who (b) has bullied SJW-friendly events in the past (see FYC) for being insufficiently dedicated to the cause and, most importantly, (c) managed to get some positive reviews for what amounts to the video game version of the Ungame, presumably, given the nature of the game, on the basis of reviewers wanting to style themselves as politically progressive. She's the face of what they're really complaining about.

    (2) @AGGs – there is nothing they can to do make this "really" about journalistic integrity because their whole complaint is that this "problem" is a phantom menace. There is no evidence that Zoe Quinn slept with anyone for favors. Asking them to make this about journalistic integrity is about like asking Bill O'Reilly what efforts to combat White Privilege he would support, since he's evidently against the current ones. Since Bill O'Reilly doesn't believe in White Privilege at all, any statement he made in that direction would be a concession. I imagine the AGG crowd feels the same about "journalistic integrity" in gaming.

    My two cents: there is no way to make this better. This particular skirmish just has to blow over, and hopefully the next time around whatever triggers the battle will be something more substantive and more germane to the real right. We can't have a real discussion about this one, because neither side is really fighting about what they claim to be fighting about. We need an incident more aligned to the actual issue.

  442. Ken in NJ says

    My question for this side is more straight-forward. Can a person have a strong interest in journalistic ethics and integrity without being misogynistic?

    Absolutely. Like this, for example

    How can these opinions now be expressed without being lumped in as someone who hates women, who attacks women, and who doesn't despise anyone who sends another human being a threat of death or rape?

    Pick a different hashtag, and stop associating with the criminals,haters and misogynists.

    Get the fucking facts straight. Even her in this thread, months after the facts are all available, we have people coming in and dropping steamers like "nobody would of given a shit about this game if it wasn't for the sleeping with gaming journalists who reported on her game" And how many of the self identified GG folks corrected this person or told him to get fucking ;lost?

    Zero

    Disassociate from assholes who cannot or will not, get the fucking facts straight – police their own fucking house. When I can check #gamergate, or a blog "proudly associated with #gamergate", I expect to see people who come in with misogynistic vitriol, rape jokes, or even incorrect fucking facts overwhelming rejected , corrected, and shunned by the "community". You want me to believe you're all about X? The drive all the assholes who are not about X out of your movement

    Focus on real problems surrounding ethics in the game industry, like the actual, literal purchasing of good reviews for the game Shadow of Mordor, the fact that EA gives enormous amounts of money to IGN, etc. Pouring outrage over an indie game developer based on false allegations about a small time, limited interest game that she's giving away for free indicate that one's real interest has absolutely nothing to do with the facade of "ethics in gaming". Talking almost non-stop about a woman whose primary claim to fame is some weak-tea feminist criticism of sexism in video games, and absolutely NOTHING ELSE indicates that ones interest is not really in the facade of ethics in gaming.

  443. sinij says

    @Noah Callaway "Why are we upset at the developers and not at the journalist?"

    Very interesting point. Why do we know the name of Monica Lewinsky? Probably for similar reasons.

    Another point to consider, Zoe Quinn and Co are after publicity. Their actions in almost all circumstances are exactly opposite of what one would do to fade away and move out of the spotlight. As such, we should treat them as celebrities and their ongoing conduct as a performance act. Alternatively, we can look at them as agents of social change, fighting the good fight. Regardless, it is clear that they are repeatedly and intentionally place themselves into the fray. These viewpoints do not align with "unwilling victim under attack" narrative they want to frame this conflict as. As such, at the very least there is unintentional dishonesty in their position.

  444. says

    @Ken in NJ:

    Pick a different hashtag, and stop associating with the criminals,haters and misogynists.

    This is EXACTLY my advice for all atheists, Democrats, prochoice people, anti-gamer-gate people, etc.

    …because there are known criminals, haters, and misogynists using each term. So the other 99% of the groups should leave and pick a new name.

    Hm. Phrased that way it sounds sort of crazy, doesn't it?

  445. sinij says

    @Ken in NJ

    Disassociate from assholes who cannot or will not, get the fucking facts straight

    Why do you expect GGs to do that when your side repeatedly failed to achieve the same?

    For example, Brad Wardell had to repeatedly get lawyers involved to get SJW stop dragging his name through dirt. This is after getting his name cleared in courts, publishing notarized apology letter and retraction from the accuser, AND showing mercy by not pushing for perjury charges.

  446. Jenny says

    real tl;dr version: GamerGate is the MacGuffin.

    What it is doesn't matter. The important thing is that it moves the chosen narrative along.

  447. David C says

    @Castaigne:

    – Journalist hates the fact that you were born on a Wednesday? OK.
    As far as I'm concerned, a journalist can give negative coverage for whatever reason they desire, because freedom of speech. They're not required to give ANYONE positive coverage. The only reason I could see them doing so is by creating a LEGAL MANDATE with a GOOD COVERAGE QUOTA – and good luck on that.

    If they're giving a bad review because you were born on a Wednesday, they aren't doing their job as a journalist. There are standards – not legal ones, but ethical ones – that say journalists should be impartial, or declare conflicts of interest.

    Yes, they CAN legally give negative (or positive) coverage for whatever reason they desire, because freedom of speech. But, everyone else is allowed to get mad at them if they're doing it for dumb reasons, also because freedom of speech.

    http://xkcd.com/1357/

  448. TheFirstGamerInParis says

    Why do you expect GGs to do that when your side repeatedly failed to achieve the same?

    I love that tit-for-tat, zero-sum line of argument because it effectively excuses you from taking responsibility or acting like an adult. Because as long as you can find an example of someone from the Other Team who is acting badly, then apparently you have all the justification in the world for… refusing to care about getting the facts straight (what an odd thing to take such a principled stance on). If the Other Side is doing it, then so must we, right? MR. PRESIDENT, WE MUST NOT ALLOW AN IGNORANCE GAP

    See also, justifications for:
    Islamic Terrorism (Why do you expect us to stop committing acts of wanton violence against civilians when Israel repeatedly failed to achieve the same?)
    Mass Spying Programs (Why do you expect us to stop committing sweeping violations of the civil liberties of hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens when China repeatedly failed to achieve the same?)
    SJW/RadFeminism (Why do you expect us to stop making insulting, dehumanizing generalizations about entire genders and races of people when Evil Men repeatedly failed to achieve the same?)
    Everything Obama Does (Why do you expect me to stop constantly lying, breaking promises, attacking our civil liberties and starting ill-advised campaigns in the Middle East when George W. Bush repeatedly failed to achieve the same?)
    Goddamned Children (Why do you expect me to do my homework when my friends at school repeatedly fail to achieve the same?)

  449. says

    @David C has it correct: I think we all agree that journalists CAN legally (and should, legally) be able to judge things on whatever criteria they like.

    There is a separate question: when they write reviews from a strong political bias and try to subvert an existing community, shame people for not adhering to their norms, etc., is that a good way to build an open and tolerant society?

    I suggest that the answer is "no".

  450. says

    @FirstGamerInParis

    Why do you expect GGs to do that when your side repeatedly failed to achieve the same?

    I love that tit-for-tat, zero-sum line of argument because it effectively excuses you from taking responsibility or acting like an adult.

    If he'd said "GG don't have to, because AGG don't", he'd have a point.

    But he didn't express norms; he asked a question. The question is a valid one: why do you expect that one side (specifically, the other side) will unilaterally disarm?

    So…why do you?

  451. TheFirstGamerInParis says

    The question is a valid one: why do you expect that one side (specifically, the other side) will unilaterally disarm?

    Well-adjusted adults who aren't motivated by irrational emotionalism sometimes do this thing where they see that the current way of doing things isn't doing anyone any good so they take the high-ground to shame – and set an example for – the other side.

    Of course, this "movement" is comprised mainly of the denizens of 4chan, reddit, and the sort of people who are gullible enough to be manipulated by 4chan and reddit. Also, people who don't give a flying shit about games but just needed some clickbait current event to use as a focal point for another Albion's Seed ether binge of an article.

    So, to answer your question: I don't expect much of anything that isn't more petulant chimping out and The World's Lamest Conspiracy Theory – from you or anyone else who willingly identifies with Gjoni's personal army.

  452. sinij says

    will unilaterally disarm?

    I disagree with this sentiment. You can't control who chose to associate with a cause, especially when charitable interpretation and benefit of the doubt is in a short supply.

    Threats/Radicals are not weapons, and they do not have an off switch that community could use to make them go away. Valid charge would be "why are you not condemning these radicals more?". This charge could be levied equally at both sides.

    Key issue is that SJW is attempting to hold GG to impossible standard, one that they cannot meet themselves. It is more 'us vs. them' tribalism, and as TheFirstGamerInParis and many others here demonstrated ingroup emotionalism trumps reason.

  453. TheFirstGamerInParis says

    It is more 'us vs. them' tribalism, and as TheFirstGamerInParis and many others here demonstrated ingroup emotionalism trumps reason.

    You and Clark (and most of the American masses, to be fair) are still doing this false-dichotomy Manichean thing. It wasn't anti-GGers who brought all this sound and fury to the corners of the internet. It isn't an anti-GGer who writes Popehat's massive treatises about how super important this Red vs. Blue media circus thing is. I'm not on the Other Side, I came in here to say that your and Clark's conception of sides in this is crap. From the beginning, it has been Team GG that has come to my favoriate internet spaces and demanded – DEMANDED – that I join their righteous fury about this lady's well-worn sex parts. It has been Team GG that is constantly flooding the front pages of my favorite vidya gaem discussion spots with yet more of The World's Lamest Conspiracy Theory, and how everyone who asks them to keep it in one thread is obviously a shill for the Feminist New World Order. I am not on your side or the other side. I am on Team Please Demonstrate To Me How This Is About Anything More Substantial Than Your Own Personal Sex Hang-Ups And Until You Can Do So Please Stop Plastering This All Over The Internet.

    The SJWs do not bother me because I don't use Tumblr or Jezebel so I do not see them and thus do not care. But I do play video games and read Popehat, so the burden is on you to explain why we should care about this as much as you do. And all you can offer is "If you're not with us then you're on the side of the SJWs" and lots of condescending veiled-insults based on that conclusion. That is not terribly compelling or convincing, and this is why this struggle has been so frustrating and why public opinion has weighed so heavily against your side. Not because of conspiracy, or evil Pinkos, or Albion's Seed. It's because, strangley enough, the righteous crusaders of 4chan and reddit have a way of alienating and antagonizing any potential allies. How unprecedented.

    You pointedly refused to acknowledge the logical weakness in your argument, but since you decided to bring up the SJWs again, let's try once more:
    You: "Why do you expect GGs to do that when your side repeatedly failed to achieve the same?"
    SJW/RadFeminism: "Why do you expect us to stop making insulting, dehumanizing generalizations about entire genders and races of people when Evil Men repeatedly failed to achieve the same?"

    Using your logic above, how do you propose that the dreaded SJWs cannot use that exact same reasoning for continuing to do all those things that you hate so much?

  454. says

    …also, it's hilarious to note just how much behind-the-scenes coordination the pink media engaged in to drive their talking points home.

  455. Ken in Nj says

    Why do you expect GGs to do that when your side repeatedly failed to achieve the same?

    Dude, I don't have a fucking "side". While Clark (and you) would certainly jump right up and down clawking about how I am clearly TEAM BLUE, I claim no labels; I claim no group membership, I am not part of an organization, nor a "loosely affiliated group of like minded individual under a common hashtag"

    I'm not trying to create an organization, or a movement, or to effect an industry wide re-examintaion of "issue X in gaming" – I'm just a guy who is reasonably knowledgeable about the facts of the issue who is willing to call out the bullshit, hate, the threats, the harassment.

    I don't support Anita Sarkeesian, except insofar as she has become a victim in this adolescent ragefest simply because she had the nerve to speak up with some weak-tea feminist criticsm of video gaes.

    I don't support Scalzi – I've disliked him for a long time, he's a douche who is out-douched only by PZ Meyers, if you ask me. Zoe Quinn is a despicable person if even only half of what her WATB ex-boyfrind said is true

    But none of that changes the facts of what I have seen as this this stupid 4chan fuelled unfolds. You know what? Every major article written about this, every article which has made the mainstream (non-gaming) press, every story that has made it onto the national fucking news broadcasts have all recognized what is actually going on, and it ain't BOTH SIDES R BAD HURRRR.

    If the "one or two trolls" in the GG movement were shouted down by all the Good Apples like you, if all the misogynistic, sexist, homophobic rhetoric on #gamergate was pointed out, disavowed, shouted down, shut down by the other "99.99% who aren't a bunch of misogynistic fucksticks every time the spouted out some of their lovely hate speech; if the GG hashtag and the GG forums exploded into "HOLY SHIT we don't want this asshole involved in our movement" when people like Mike "there's no such thing as Date Rape" started prancing around in their name, there wouldn't even be a fucking "other side"

    As for Brad Newell, remind me, what was the group affiliation of those SJWs who harassed him? Were they aligned under #saynotogamergate maybe? Or part of the Social Justice League of America? Because I'm not affiliated with them. I don't read their blogs, I don't follow them on twitter, I don't donate money to their KickStarters (if they even have them). I'm not part of a movement they're starting under some hashtag. If I did, or I were, I certainly would have done my best to shut them down when they were misbehaving to protect the sanctity of the movement I was part of. But I'm not, so I prioritize my limited time and energy accordingly

  456. TheFirstGamerInParis says

    Some would argue that the pink media struck first, declaring that all gamers were terrible people. Note the dates.

    "They started it." Truly, you are the Socrates of our time.

  457. Ken in Nj says

    I find it amusing, and telling, that Clark equates "try to remove the assholes, harassers, misogynists, and criminals from your movement" with "disarmament"

  458. Garrett says

    One of the themes here is the effort by SJW-types to ostracise's those who don't conform out of the group/society. Let's move a little beyond that and assume that they are somewhat successful. What are the ostracized to do? If the goal in life is to propagate ones genes, and one is now incapable of doing so, there aren't many nice options left. All of the options I see involve the use of brutal force, and that certainly doesn't end well.

  459. Jenny says

    As an aside, I have to say nothing convinces me of erudition, deep thinking, and true righteousness of character like constant profanity.

  460. Jacob Schmidt says

    Some would argue that the pink media struck first, declaring that all gamers were terrible people. Note the dates.

    I note that no one has shown exactly where or how those posts declared "All gamers are terrible people." Or, indeed, anything at all wrong with those posts.

  461. sorrykb says

    Clark wrote:

    Some would argue that the pink media struck first, declaring that all gamers were terrible people. Note the dates.

    I think you need to go back and note the dates.
    For that matter, read the damn articles.
    Every one of these was posted as a response to the harassment and threats against Zoe Quinn (and against Anita Sarkeesian.
    Still confused? I give you the first two paragraphs of Casey Johnston's article in Ars Technica:

    "Oh, Anita, you're so beautiful and sexy, you know that?" was the nicest terrible thing a random Twitter user said to Anita Sarkeesian, creator of the Tropes vs.Women in Video Games series, as he peppered her with threats of rape, death, and the address of her home and that of her parents following the posting of her latest video on Monday. The video, which would be right at home on PBS in tone if not content, suggested that many mainstream games represent women as accessories and shorthand rather than as humans, a viewpoint that generated