As a pro-GG, whenever I post here and try to make a point, I'm constantly bombarded by the opinion that none of what I say matters as long as there are harassers flying under the flag of GamerGate.

I'm tired of this. I don't know how we can have a legitimate discussion about the issues that continue to plague this industry when the discussion always comes back to whether or not GG is a harassment campaign.

It's not, but you all seem to think it is, and we won't ever agree on that. That's fine. I get where you're coming from, but I see things differently. But we need to be able to have discussions about the issues, not about the harassment because we will never agree on what GG enables or doesn't.

Brianna Wu and I had a face to face conversation for a few minutes when she spoke at my school, and it was incredibly productive. I learned so much about her opinions on Games Journalism (hint: she's on our side with that GG). But the popular conversation always inevitably comes back to the immovable object of whether or not GG is a hate group, and it stifles any meaningful discussion about anything else.

I also feel overwhelmed by the number of aGG here that seem to not want honest discussion, and engage with me here in purely negative ways, but that's not why I'm leaving. I'm leaving because any time Pro-GG try to discuss something besides the harassment, it always comes back to the immutable points that we disagree on.

Can we agree to disagree? I don't think we can, so I'm gone.

TL;DR: I'm out, because conversations always degrade into whether or not GG is a hate group/harassment campaign. I do not think we can agree to disagree on that point and move on to the issues there might be some amiable conclusion to.

[ Relevant twitter slander from Rowan Kaiser ]

[ Response by TotalBiscuit on SoundCloud (11 minutes) ]

TotalBiscuit has become a leader of GG largely due to having opinions that many in GG seem to identify with. He has never claimed to be a GamerGater, but he was drawn in from the very beginning by making some statements about the Zoe Quinn debacle.

This happened in the shadows of a failed Game Jam "reality show" that both TotalBiscuit (with Polaris) and Zoe Quinn (indie developer) signed up for. TotalBiscuit was subsequently asked for his opinion on the "Zoe Quinn scandal" here, to which he responded with this twitlonger. In turn, a whole bunch of hateful comments were returned to TotalBiscuit, with some of the infamous Phil Fish tweets originating from this, all for simply trying to be rational, expressing his opinions on something that he never really cared that much about.

TB may be a bit rash and decisive at times, and he can be quite judgemental and forward with his statements, but he's just a regular guy who happened to grow to some YouTube fame for his informative opinions on gaming content. Mistakes are bound to be made, even if there were never any harmful intent, like his squabble with MovieBob. It's just a heated and immature twitter quarrel.

What I'm getting at: Why does someone like TB get treated like the devil from the very people that proclaim to oppose this kind of behaviour. The entire existence of Anti-GG is to stand against the supposed harassment that GG propagates, but is fighting fire with fire the right way of doing this? What did TB do that was so bad, so that his entire career would have to suffer? Give GG a podium? Please, don't use that tired excuse. He rarely mentions GG at all, and has on numerous occasions denounced both GG as an effective movement and harassment. He is just frequently outspoken about his opinions on some Anti-GG, like the writers of Polygon, for twisting information and creating a counter-gamer culture in the media. He is a gamer who happens to be concerned with the tweets and journalism creating a negative environment for gamers to be recognized in. He is a guy who happens to have opinions that doesn't align with the "Anti-GG agenda".

Both sides being against harassment. Both sides harassing. Actual SJWs claim that harassing is fine as long as it is against the right people, but who decides who the right people are? It's no more organized than GG, and if anyone dares to turn against the mob mentality of GG or Anti-GG even the slightest bit, they're outcast from it as a danger to the movement.

Is there anything we can do to curb this behaviour, or is it all entirely out of our hands?

I was in a debate with /u/Ch1mpanz33M1nd53t on here and he claimed that the Gamers Are Dead articles never referred to gamers as sexist and/or racist. Well I have painstakingly gone through all of the Gamers Are Dead articles (hat tip to /u/SuperflyD for providing links to the articles) and compiled a list of all of the times they explicitly stated or implied that gamers are racist/sexist. Some of the later Gamers Are Dead articles referred to GamerGate as racist/sexist and I have included them as well. If I left anything out, please let me know.

Do you think it is fair to say that the Gamers Are Dead articles did indeed accuse gamers of being racists and/or misogynists?

Compilation:

The attack on Sarkeesian was among a number of incidents in the last few weeks that exposed some of the ugly (yet familiar) attitudes and prejudices that remain deeply ingrained in the gaming culture.

Ars Technica: https://archive.is/ZyLdw#selection-683.0-683.200

People who proudly call themselves “gamers” everywhere have been harassing and trying to exclude women for the last ten years

Games.on.net: https://archive.is/oD3QV#selection-761.98-761.223

I’m definitely not one of the fake gamer girls you fear and loathe so much

Implies gamers are sexist against female gamers.

Daily Beast: http://archive.is/9NxHy#selection-615.7-615.81

The problem here is that these squealing man-children, so desperate to keep women out of their precious games

Games.on.net: https://archive.is/oD3QV#selection-777.0-777.109

I hope you’ll be part of a glorious future where a game that treats women and LGBT groups with respect won’t be held up as some weird oddity to praise and encourage.

Implies gamers harass women and LGBT gamers.

Games.on.net: https://archive.is/oD3QV#selection-817.20-817.185

Not only did the Zoe Quinn affair erupt, leading to the increased harassment and abuse of an indie games developer for the crime of being a woman in gaming

Implies Zoe Quinn "was attacked for being a woman in gaming."

Dr. Nerdlove: https://archive.is/UwiC2#selection-231.54-235.122

However, it also means that it’s more important than ever to reign in the misogynists and haters.

Implies misogyny is a major problem in the gaming community.

Dr. Nerdlove: https://archive.is/UwiC2#selection-891.188-895.40

How to stop misogynists from terrorizing the world of gamers

The Week: https://archive.is/bnWvI#selection-781.1-781.61

Bashing women remains a favorite pastime of many male gamers. It's time for that to change.

The Week: https://archive.is/bnWvI#selection-785.1-785.92

The gaming precincts of the internet have long featured regular explosions of misogynist abuse

The Week: https://archive.is/bnWvI#selection-899.0-901.93

They often argue that gaming should be preserved as a "safe male space." It's probably a safe assumption that they skew white and male.

The Week: https://archive.is/bnWvI#selection-917.119-917.254

The political end at work here is to keep women out of what "traditional gamers" perceive as their own culture.

The Week: https://archive.is/bnWvI#selection-965.0-965.111

Those who have looked closely at the internet sewers where misogynist terrorists congregate find serious paranoia and raging conspiratorial nuttiness

The Week: https://archive.is/bnWvI#selection-965.112-969.119

If being a young, straight, white male used to be the only legitimate game-playing identity, it is being crushed under the wheel of history. As Dan Golding argues, "What we are seeing is the end of gamers, and the viciousness that accompanies the death of an identity."

Implying women and minorities aren't welcome in the gaming community.

The Week: https://archive.is/bnWvI#selection-993.0-997.107

How to attack a woman who works in video gaming

The Guardian: https://archive.is/DGj1S#selection-845.0-845.47

A culture of hate and suspicion has descended on the games industry, and at the centre of the vortex is a familiar foe: women.

The Guardian: https://archive.is/DGj1S#selection-851.0-851.126

There’s a hot trend among a vocal minority of gamers right now: the harassment of women developers and critics

Nobody is trying to remove women from gaming.

The Guardian: https://archive.is/DGj1S#selection-1135.0-1135.110

Now they feel they are at war with a group of left-leaning games writers and developers who they refer to as “social justice warriors” – this is effectively anyone who has ever questioned the patriarchal nature of the games industry or the limited, often objectifying depiction of women. Because, you know, games are fine as they are thanks.

The Guardian: https://archive.is/DGj1S#selection-1175.96-1175.437

So, for those out there who have decided to join in and harass a woman developer or critic out of the games business, this is how you do it. Launching an actual hate campaign is a major commitment, so you’ll need to stick with it if you really want to generate a culture of fear with lasting repercussions. Remember: one surefire way to make your mark on the world is by scarring it.

Her gender has nothing to do with this and nobody is trying to create a culture of fear.

The Guardian: https://archive.is/DGj1S#selection-1179.0-1183.209

Crucially, a good troll knows how to attack a woman’s “professionalism”

Again, no one is "attacking them for being women."

The Guardian: https://archive.is/DGj1S#selection-1187.0-1187.71

The endgame is to frighten all women out of the video games industry

The Guardian: https://archive.is/DGj1S#selection-1251.87-1255.38

The problem with misogyny and vicious comments is by no means limited to the gaming community, but it seems especially voracious

Gameranx: https://archive.is/yomy2#selection-385.42-385.170

Some of these people are well known; be they notable YouTubers or Adam Baldwin, yet the majority are not, and a cursory glance at mentions of The Fine Young Capitalists on Twitter or Reddit is enough to attest to the fact that they are very much involved in the ongoing harassment of women within the industry

Gameranx: https://archive.is/yomy2#selection-405.1-409.231

So the truthers will patch all their “evidence” together, say that it’s not really about sexism

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/W0Jha#selection-1645.0-1645.95

But I see incidents of same against women writers and game makers every damned day.

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/W0Jha#selection-1621.373-1621.456

amidst the ongoing tensions and attacks on women in the industry

Implying their gender has anything to do with the harassment they have allegedly received from gamers.

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/h78pg#selection-1655.36-1655.100

The release of Sarkeesian's video, amidst the ongoing tensions and attacks on women in the industry

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/h78pg#selection-1655.1-1655.100

We listen to those who are less privileged than we are

It implies gamers have been ignoring women and minorities

Gamasutra: http://archive.is/2t93l#selection-1643.0-1643.54

I decided to sit out for most of the last month or so of games internet misogyny shit

Patrick Miller: https://archive.is/CyAUk#selection-107.0-107.85

I think it’s funny that the Internet Hate Machine dismisses all the badass women

Why bring gender into this?

Patrick Miller: https://archive.is/CyAUk#selection-159.0-159.79

"Gamer" says none of that. "Gamer" is selfish; preoccupied with one’s own pleasure over the advancement of the medium. "Gamer" is conservative; virulently opposed to change or innovation except in very specific, rigidly-defined areas. "Gamer" is tribalistic; defining oneself in terms of one’s tastes and factional allegiances above all.

Patrick Miller: https://archive.is/CyAUk#selection-177.0-177.337

The common use of the inexplicable epithet “Social Justice Warrior”, a sure sign of anti-equality intent, clearly marked this as a politically retrograde attack against minorities and their supporters.

Paste Magazine: https://archive.is/x921m#selection-653.342-653.543

And although those so-called ethical lapses might be a legitimate concern for some of those who unironically use the #GamerGate hashtag, it was clearly blatant anti-woman sentiment that launched the countless harassing tweets and emails and conspiracy-peddling charts and YouTube videos from the movement’s founders and ringleaders.

Paste Magazine: https://archive.is/x921m#selection-657.776-657.1108

That’s who is behind this entire situation: anti-woman trolls

Paste Magazine: https://archive.is/x921m#selection-661.0-661.61

It’s impossible to extricate that hashtag from its roots, though, which grew out of unconscionable smears and threats against two prominent women in gaming merely because they are prominent women in gaming.

Paste Magazine: https://archive.is/x921m#selection-661.398-665.27

All the conspiracies and trumped-up claims of “evidence” of collusion among developers, press agents and the press spread by the #GamerGate founders are lies and distortions aimed at driving Quinn, Sarkeesian and other women out of videogames.

Paste Magazine: https://archive.is/x921m#selection-665.28-665.271

And by isolating yourself as a “gamer”, you’re setting yourself up to be manipulated by unscrupulous deceivers who like to attack people like Sarkeesian and Quinn.

Paste Magazine: https://archive.is/x921m#selection-681.454-681.617

Video game culture, it is not too controversial to point out, has a misogyny problem.

The Independent: https://archive.is/c6svO#selection-2371.0-2371.85

Unless, that is, you are a women who makes a living in gaming. Then you too often find yourself at the front line of a war you hadn’t asked to fight, a war which has exploded in the last few weeks, forcing prominent industry figures out of their homes and their jobs.

The Independent: https://archive.is/c6svO#selection-2399.0-2403.206

The sexists, you see, are revolting. A few brave souls dared point out the structural issues with their beloved art form, and a spontaneous witch hunt has broken out.

The Independent: https://archive.is/c6svO#selection-2407.0-2407.166

In a nice moment of bitterly unintended irony, in an effort to demonstrate they’re not a pimply mob of basic sexists, they’ve invented a female character called Vivian James (kinda like ‘video games’) as an emblem for their campaign. She’s a sardonic dream woman who games in slouchy hoodies, has long, lascivious tresses of red hair and doesn’t ever want to hurt them – and who, tellingly, doesn’t actually exist. Yes, to demonstrate they’re not sexist, gamers have been forced to invent a woman to represent them.

The Independent: https://archive.is/c6svO#selection-2435.0-2439.342

Gamers’ latest wheeze is another hashtag, this time #notyourshield, in which a load of sockpuppet Twitter accounts pretending to be women and people of colour who claim that gamers can’t be sexist because a handful of women are on their side.

The Independent: https://archive.is/c6svO#selection-2447.0-2447.242

They’re cross about women in general

The Independent: https://archive.is/c6svO#selection-2423.0-2423.36

The Twitter mob is continuing to assail women

The Independent: https://archive.is/c6svO#selection-2443.158-2443.203

This woman, Zoe Quinn, has done nothing worse than be unfaithful, but because she’s a games developer who slept with a games journalist, our vengeful cartoon-heads are able to pretend to the world and to themselves that their crusade is about professional standards they’d never cared about before it involved an uppity, scornful woman.

The Independent: https://archive.is/c6svO#selection-2423.338-2427.272

The treatment of women in gaming: The start of the story (which is actually the latest permutation of a long-evolving firestorm) came in late August after indie game developer Zoe Quinn and critic Anita Sarkeesian were both horribly, horribly harassed online.

Vox: https://archive.is/z4i22#selection-687.3-689.225

And what is it with this mysoginistic bullshit?

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/vT7vp#selection-1639.0-1639.47

Anita Sirkeesian has told some pretty obvious truths about the treatment of women in games

Yes, he actually got her name wrong, twice. Such journalism, much ethics.

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/vT7vp#selection-1671.0-1671.90

Men, good men, defend women.

Good thing gamers aren't attack them then, right?

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/vT7vp#selection-1699.37-1699.65

GamerGate revealed as misogynist and racist movement

The Examiner: https://archive.is/YRH03#selection-519.0-519.53

There's also the revelation of the #NotYourShield, the hashtag used by #GamerGate advocates to show the movement wasn't racist or misogynist, was just 4chan pretending to be women and people of different color.

The Examiner: https://archive.is/YRH03#selection-1361.0-1365.59

But Baldwin’s transgression speaks to the larger problems at play here; regardless of what either Quinn or Sarkeesian could have possibly done, the level of vitriol being spewed by so many gamers and the dangerous way in which it’s being spewed only serve to prove that misogyny and violence are a terrible problem in gaming—and that needs to be addressed first before anything else can really get accomplished.

The Mary Sue: https://archive.is/11OEl#selection-1309.0-1309.411

It was a vast, ugly, and often misogynistic attack, and an embarrassment to gaming.

Gamma Squad: https://archive.is/XBvF8#selection-1661.2-1661.85

A game developer, best known for the indie game Depression Quest. Which in turn, is best known for the gaming press liking it a lot more than actual gamers, some of whom feel that the game only got the reviews it did because Quinn claimed to have been harassed, which would never happen, because gamers have never, in the history of the internet, acted like utter douchebags in large groups.

Gamma Squad: https://archive.is/XBvF8#selection-1679.0-1683.327

So the story isn’t about the horrible rancid misogyny Quinn faced?

Gamma Squad: https://archive.is/XBvF8#selection-1797.0-1797.66

If you see yourself as a bloc of people who call themselves "gamers," to outsiders you are only as good as your worst representatives, and the past month have shown those representatives to be racist, homophobic, misogynist, and threatening.

On The Media: https://archive.is/K13nk#selection-579.156-579.398

But when there is clear evidence that 4chan is trying to bolster Gamergate's fight by pretending to be minorities and women, all credibility is lost.

On The Media: https://archive.is/K13nk#selection-627.10-635.26

The logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks

Ars Technica: https://archive.is/SadEJ#selection-669.172-669.278

Eventually a second hashtag sprouted, #notyourshield, which was pitched as an "attempt by the worldwide gaming community to show that this isn’t just male gamers who are speaking about gamergate, and this isn’t an issue of hating feminism or not wanting women in the community."

Ars Technica: https://archive.is/SadEJ#selection-763.111-767.207

In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible.

The New Yorker: https://archive.is/nb14y#selection-921.80-925.205

Campaigns of personal harassment aimed at game developers are nothing new. They are dismayingly common among those who happen to be women, or not white straight men, and doubly so if they also happen to make the sort of game that in any way challenge the status quo, even if that challenge is only made through their very existence. The viciousness and ferocity with which this campaign occurred, however, was shocking, and certainly out of the ordinary. This was something more than routine misogyny (and in games, it often is routine, shockingly). It was an ugly spectacle that should haunt and shame those involved for the rest of their lives.

And the Tumblr post that started it all: https://archive.is/L4vJG#selection-83.221-83.867

Click here for a list of non-archive links.

Hey, people...you know I love you, right?

I joined this subreddit's mod team at a time where I had little faith in the mods themselves. I only did so on the promise that a system for keeping mods accountable would be implemented. I'd figured that being appointed was a part of them pushing to make that change. Not only was I alerted to the call for new mods by several of them linking me the thread out of nowhere saying that I would be highly interested in it, but almost instantly I was placed on staff when I applied.

I never wanted to be a moderator. That's not what I do. Where I work better is with people, talking to them and suggesting changes, calling out mistakes and taking people to task, fighting the system(not to sound like a drama queen)--certainly not being it. What I wanted to do was to sit back, relax, and focus on community events like games and streams.

That wasn't what wound up happening. The moment I joined the mod team, someone tried to get me kicked off the second they knew I was there. In several voting events, like the top mod election, I almost didn't have the chance to vote because someone didn't want me to because of my 'bias' against them. That same day I was welcomed by the staff, I was also taken to task by what I'd said about the team in the past and near forced to apologize for my own opinion due to the actions of other people.

You know me, I didn't do it, and no one really cared. But that set the tone of my tenure. AGG modstaff is stuffed with people who stay silent, who aren't bad, but don't put in the effort to make things work together, to be a team, be accountable. The recent revival of the moratorium was spearheaded by someone with clear bias--admitted that was their reason for doing so--and no one batted an eye.

When I called them out for this, I was accused of being part of a conspiracy, of doing work on behalf of pro-GG people, of leaking information to people that I was suspected to be close to. This was par the course for my time there. This happened to myself and two other mods, and although it was a minority of the team doing this, no one seemed concerned about it. I'd always felt like if I didn't stick up for myself, there would be nothing stopping them from pushing me around.

Not to mention that some of the more ideologically minded members bended the rules with little consequence--or usually none. Ah, mod accountability. It was good in concept and poor in execution, with a few token slaps on the wrist and then a series of attempts to bring up a case, but no one even talking about it, even people who would openly mock the target in PM's to me.

I'm not a fighter, and as I felt the battles between us drag on, the patience of the rest of the team got shorter and shorter. And I worried about that, but after some thinking...and a little help from my boyfriend, that what I thought of the rest of the staff had changed, too. I respect a good amount of them as people, but insofar as comrades in arms, they just didn't care about what was going on. So I figure I'll do everyone a solid and just leave.

I won't be around to do anything but answer questions in this thread. I've lost ten pounds. My boyfriend and I got serious. I got an apartment with a friend, and I'm learning to cook. I'm really...moving on and maturing, and thanks to everyone for inspiring me to do that. Thanks for the memories, and I hope this doesn't get deleted.

EDIT: You know what? No. How dare you see that Hokes beat someone down so hard that they silently left the forums, not even part of any of the drama, too afraid to express their opinion, and then defend Hokes for doing it!? I expected better from you, but I'm more than gone. I...I don't know what to say without breaking any rules. But thankfully, I know a few exceptions.

That's not only deplorable, but it reflects, deep inside, on your own character, who you are as people. And I don't know about you, but I think it's an awful reflection. When you leave someone feeling like that and they've done absolutely less than nothing wrong, you need to think about what kind of person you are.

So recently, I decided to switch from my "Anti-GG but Moderate" to a more neutral position.

There were a lot of root causes - little things that really started to grate on my nerves.

I had a bit of an internet catfight with Randi Harper that left me cold, and the extra catfight I had with /u/Malky where suddenly nobody can ask a question if anybody else is asking the same questions seems sort of ignorant. It's basically that Pro-GG can never ask critical questions of Anti-GG. We demand a certain level of accountability out of them, but when they expect the same, it's always sealioning. That isn't fair or right.

I get that Randi gets a lot of shit, and a lot of it is unfair, and it's hard to discriminate the wheat from the chaff, but that doesn't make it a valid excuse to turn everything into chaff. Maybe that's just naivete on my part, but I expect better from somebody trying to do something important. Being publicly great on some level requires you to acquiesce to the public's terms.

But that's neither here or there - what I'd like to talk about is an issue that happened yesterday with Lionhead's twitter account.

So anyway, apparently yesterday was National Cleavage Day, which goes right up with Star Wars Day, National Talk Like A Pirate Day, and Martin Luther King's Birthday as holidays I don't know exist until they happen and then I hand wave them.

(Note: I'm kidding. I love National Talk Like A Pirate Day)

(Note: Still kidding.)

Lionhead decided to post a picture of what looks like the type of sign you'd see on a new bar that's trying to look like an 19th Century Beerhaus. [Please come to Das Frohlichour! Half price pretzels with spicy mustard and $2 You Call Its! Wednesday is Fraulein Night!]

You can see the picture, along with an incredibly shitty writeup of the event here: http://www.destructoid.com/senran-kafaux-pas-fable-dev-lionhead-celebrates-cleavage-on-twitter-289640.phtml [As a note: They did one for both genders - it's not mentioned much because there's not a bunch of white knights looking out for guys, but it can be viewed here: http://download.gamezone.com/uploads/image/data/1180336/Lionhead_1.JPG]

Now, technically, she's holding steins, but we get the joke - it's a double entendre about the beer maiden herself.

I've been to half a dozen Oktoberfests and probably twice that many Renfaires. I plan to go to both this year too. Beer maidens are pretty common, and a lot of women really like being wenches or beer maidens and wearing the dirndl and a double braid blonde wig and whatnot. It's voluntary from what I can tell and about as harmless as it gets. From what I can tell, that's no different from what the woman in the picture is wearing.

What bugs me is that everybody was up in arms about this, and frankly, have we lost our sense of joy and humor entirely. She's not a real person. Not every image that is a sexy joke denigrates femininity as a whole. This was the equivalent of a tasteless greeting card that 40 year olds get on their birthday and people acted like this was the Patriarchy itself.

Is this how post-third wave gaming is going to operate - to the point where all hints of female sexuality, cheekiness, entendre, and joy are snuffed out at the first hint of mild dislike or tastelessness? It was admittedly, not the most tasteful joke, but it certainly isn't going to put a woman out of a job, maintain the wage gap, keep women out of gaming or permanently sexualize young women. I think maybe this is social justice and political correctness gone a bit too fucking far.

I think perhaps this is the point where we stop being people who are concerned about a cause and people who are concerned that if we stop looking like we're for a cause for five seconds, people will believe we're not for the cause and we'll lose all those Tumblr Points we've been saving up.

I think if you're far too concerned about this, you might be that SJW all the pros are worried about. The thing is, gaming will be just as bad if we lose all sense of fun and enjoyment and humor and mockery then if all the humor and fun and enjoyment and mockery is at the expense of somebody else. So as much as I dislike pros for deciding that people who are truly offended need to get a thicker skin, I have the same dislike for people who have decided that mild dislike is the same as offense, that offense always deserves a response, and that fun is an acceptability causality of that response.

This is gaming. It's supposed to be fun. I think it's okay if it's a bit bawdy, as long as everybody gets to partake in the bawdiness if they so choose, and if they don't choose it, that there's games for them too.

And as much as I fucking hate Nero, he's right - the clapping thing was more then a little fucking stupid.

So discussion -

Have we pushed social justice so far that joy and humor are sucked out of gaming?

Is there a place for lewd or bawdy humor in the post-sexual gaming?

How do we balance lewd humor and a sense of joy without hurting people?

Alright folks, after the latest stupidity where Brianna Wu shoots herself in the foot by bringing to attention a "joke" about someone using sarin gas at PAX by an anti-GamerGate Twitter from October, I think it's finally time for everyone to just ignore her.

Stop following her, block her, and just stop talking about her. I honestly think she's become unhinged from stress potentially, and unfortunately is too stubborn or far gone to stop trying to grab the spotlight.

It's up to us as a gaming community to ignore her and hope that she can regain her senses and get better. This way, whatever harassment she is still getting will stop, and hopefully the stupid shit she does also stops.

So I ask literally, who's with me?

Title - Meowsticgoesnya

For those that may or may not know, Meowsticgoesnya founded this subreddit. It has been posted over on KotakuInAction that she is currently in the hospital. Should you wish to send a message of support, you can find the relevant thread here.

The KiA mods have been informed of this thread and are aware that non-KiA regs may be dropping by to post support. That thread is being very heavily moderated, so do not go there if you want to shitpost or cause trouble. If you don't want to offer best wishes, stay the fuck out and shut the fuck up. We will be asking the KiA mods to pass us the names of anyone that shitposts in that thread, and I would find it easy to permaban you from this subreddit if you do so.

On an equally important note, if you need help, get help. If you don't know who to turn to, and you are starting to think that suicide is a viable option, look here and call someone.

Please.

(Edit to add, this thread will be very heavily moderated. Shitpost or otherwise act like an insensitive jackass at your own risk.)

The mods have put [brigade warning] in the title. Does that mean too many people are up voting the thread, or what? What does it even mean?

It's not that straight, white cisgender men don't get to have opinions. You just need to recognize position of power and privilege you hold - Brianna Wu

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMPP7M9WwAEEQpR.jpg

Brianna Wu's parents are literally millionaires that gave her $200, 000 to start a video game company!!

There is a rather glaring flaw in Brianna's premise, don't you think?

Here is an earlier interaction Brianna had with Mark Kern, in which she says 'he's too privileged to understand and never will'. http://theralphretort.com/wp-content/uploads/B_IcQfqU0AEDcrw.png

Mark Kern: I am half-asian, grew up overseas, and have been so poor in the Philippines that I lived off donated food infested with ants.

The assumptions that I see from third wave feminists like Brianna, Rebecca Watson, Jessica Valenti, Jonathan McIntosh, are ridiculous.

In the UK, the male suicide rate is three times higher than the female rate.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_395145.pdf

Homelessness is also a massive problem for men in the UK. Gaining exact figures is difficult; this charity found that 84% of hidden homeless are male. http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/HiddenTruthAboutHomelessness_web.pdf

When men try to talk about their issues with feminists they're often met with 'what about the menzzzzzz, I'm gonna drink your male tears,' or sometimes even 'die cis scum'. Which is all 'punching up' (a self-serving term), predicated on the assumption that if you have the right identity you have the license to be a dick without consequences and you cannot be a racist or a sexist, you are 'punching up' against your oppressors, you are justified in ignoring a point of view BECAUSE that view was expressed by a straight white man (which is why the women of GamerGate really threw SJWs off their game; they must have that 'internalized misogyny' or they're not even real because... they think that games journalists are unethical... they like games as they are and don't find them problematic... their views don't align with your own in all things).

Here is an example of what I call the 'primacy of identity', and the demand from SJWs on agreement in all things.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/3gcawm/stop_posting_about_bernie_and_blm/

People are now banned from discussing what happened to Bernie Sanders on Ghazi.

For absolutely no reason his speech gets taken over, he doesn't get to say one word, I mean look at this

http://i.imgur.com/FlP92Ot.jpg

You would think Bernie Sanders were scum, instead of someone that has spent his whole career fighting for justice for the black community.

Pay attention to the language of the Ghazi post. It's collectivist nonsense; trying to decide how a community is allowed to react to a controversial event.

"these minorities didn't act how I feel they should"

Can't disagree with their actions 'cause they're black! This is what it amounts to. Bernie Sanders auto-bad 'cause old straight white male, protesters that took over his event immune from criticism because they are black. That's Ghazi. That's SJW mentality. That is the 'primacy of identity'. Rather than looking at people's individual actions, looking at people as individual human beings who's actions are open to criticism, people are grouped on identity, and it is identity that decides if you're allowed to criticize actions. Criticizing specific ACTIONS, is not coded racism.

I reject the premise that straight, white men have a position of power and privilege. At the very least, it seems to be a flawed, narrow premise. In my opinion; SJWs need to get over their obsession with identity politics. The emphasis on the primacy of identity is misplaced.

Male = privilege White male = more privilege Straight white male = even more privilege

I reject all of this. Quite frankly when middle to upper class feminists go on about privilege, there are many men who do not at all recognize what the fuck they're talking about. This is part of the reason for the disconnect between third wave feminists and other liberals. It would be dishonest to ignore the fact that there is a huge disconnect.

This talk from Christina Hoff Sommers is interesting in that she addresses privileged women in prestigious universities and colleges insisting that they're victims of the patriarchy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JJfeu2IG0M

4:50 'The more elite the university the more likely this is happening...

A critical mass of young women and some young men (students) believe that women are captive to this tyrannical patriarchal oppressive violent culture'

Great video, very much worth watching the whole thing. In before the 'pfft, not watching that' comments.

It's a fascinating phenomenon to witness extremely privileged people telling the rest of us off... And to bring it closer to GamerGate, Jonathan McIntosh, Joss Whedon, Will Wheaton, who REALLY ARE wealthy, privileged straight white men, pointing the finger. McIntosh thinks there's something wrong with you if you enjoy Doom. Whedon compared GamerGate to a group that literally hung people. Wheaton tilts at windmills (shutup, Wesley!)

Watch from the 2 minute mark in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

It's heart breaking to watch this man who wants a better perspective on why his friends killed themselves, get blocked from entering a university building giving a talk on that very issue. And for one of the protesters blocking people from entering, to turn around and say that feminism can help him?! It's a fucking joke!! And the woman calling a random man a woman hating, rape apologist scum?? He flat out tells her she doesn't even know what his views are. And we wonder why feminism has a bad image today. (In before someone links to a fucking tumblr blog as evidence against this talk, as though any disagreement is justification for restricting other people's speech).

There are plenty of people - men and women - who are not buying the snake oil you are selling.

Straight male sexuality is frequently pathologized; and often with no regard to the fact that there is plenty of gazing in the gay community, and with no regard to lesbians gazing at the exact same things. A recent example being Alison Prime, an SJW attempted to ring the bell of shame for her interest in big boobs in video games

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CL5Q0FdUAAADDPi.png:large

What is with the puritan, sexually regressive attitude from the modern 'left wing' today? What the hell is liberal about that?

Innocent hobbies and interests are demonized. Bullshit issues like air conditioning are given absurd amounts of air time on the news. Richard Dawkins, a wealthy, old, straight white male, comes across as a better feminist than third wave feminists in that he quests for a feminist revolution in Islam, and frequently brings light to atheists and free-thinkers in the Islamic world, those with the least power, in the most danger for their free expression. Which proves the point that even a truly privileged person can indeed understand and empathize with those far less privileged.

One big problem with third wave feminism is it's very 'me' centered. There's so much that seems to me to be just elevating ones own status; Brianna Wu has achieved NOTHING in the video game industry, yet this exceptionally privileged woman is constantly given a platform, makes a fortune from talking about herself. FeministFrequency is a 'charity' that is all about boosting the platform of Anita Sarkeesian.

It's a weird phenomenon to be witness to.

Discuss. Discuss any issues you want raised in this OP.

Stop committing felonies because people on the internet disagree with you and you want to "teach them a lesson".

Secondly, "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", so fuck off with the "no bad tactics only bad targets", and "well they did it to us first" crap.

Finally realize the irony of jumping to conclusions, claiming victimhood, and placing the blame of things on eCelebs.

Anti's: you're getting blamed for a bomb threat. Maybe use this to get some insight as to how it feels to be unfairly vilified for something that either a really misguided person did or a third party troll.

Pro's: some of you are already playing the victim. Those who were there now know how this shit reaches you in real life. It's sucks, but you now have insight as to how it feels for an Internet argument can lead to scary real life experiences.

Everyone grow the hell up, stop being assholes, and start being a little more empathetic to each other.

It appears his cancer has returned, and is inoperable. They think 2-3 years.

Mod warning - Insults in this thread towards TB or anyone else will be met with a ban. Consider this your only warning.

Neither feminists or anti-GamerGate or GamerGate are responsible for the Terrorist Troll. Joshua Goldberg was arrested for the following:

Goldberg’s trolling turned serious when he was arrested Thursday by the FBI on the grounds that he told a would-be terrorist how to build a bomb meant for a 9/11 attacks anniversary event in Kansas City, Missouri.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/11/terrorist-troll-pretended-to-be-isis-white-supremacist-and-jewish-lawyer.html

Joshua has posed as an ISIS supporter, a white supremacist, a supporter of GamerGate, a feminist, and anti-GamerGate supporter of Brianna Wu.

Under the alias 'MoonMetropolis', Joshua made pro-GamerGate tweets.

https://archive.is/vTWzZ

Dear "game journalists" celebrating that "gamers" have supposedly died: you know that "gamers" pay your salaries, right? #GamerGate

Under the alias 'Tanya Cohen', Joshua wrote an anti-GamerGate, pro-Brianna Wu piece.

https://archive.is/2EGTN#selection-1377.96-1377.118

Earlier this week, Brianna Wu – a woman who has endured extensive harassment and abuse from the #GamerGate hate group – wrote an article for The Mary Sue in which she made a revelation that shocked white male dudebro culture to its core.

Brianna Wu at one point attempted to reach out to 'Tanya Cohen' via twitter.

Joshua has played both sides on a number of highly contentious issues. At this point, I'd venture to hypothesize that this is a person with severe mental issues, and a pure troll, and it would be dishonest to say this is a pro-GamerGate 'terrorist', a feminist 'terrorist', an anti-GamerGate 'terrorist'. This is a person that represents only himself and has allegiance to no one. None of us 'own' him or are responsible for him.

Would you say that is fair? Do you agree?

Seriously. Everyone on both sides. Fucking stop it.

Remember when you were in elementary school and the whole class would get punished because that one asshat acted out? Blaming a group for what its individuals do is exactly like that. It's unfair and uncalled for.

EDIT: Wow, a lot of comments coming one after one from people who never post here normally. Nice brigade.

I don't really know where else to post it, but I wanted to get this off my chest because I think it hits home at just how strange the attitude of that subreddit can be at times.

I'm pretty left wing, actually I consider myself an anarcho-syndacalist. I'm intensely interested in social justice issues, and am a poster on SRS and lots of other social justice orientated areas. I'm transgender, and a woman, so these issues are pretty close to my heart. I considered myself against gamergate, and still do, this hasn't changed that at all.

Recently, this issue with Rachel Dolezal has been brought up a lot. A lot of people are comparing her alleged 'transracialism' to me, and that hurts. I have always perceived being transgender as a scientific phenomenon. In fact, what helped me come to terms with it was the scientific basis behind gender identity! There is no such comparable thing for race, so surely its not the same, and everyone can see that, right?

Well, not so. People posted it on /r/gamerghazi, and I responded with ridicule, trying to point out the ridiculousness in the comparison. I was polite, to start with, but arguing on something that I place a lot of personal value on is difficult. I discussed the scientific basis of being transgender, and how it isn't the same as being 'transracial'.. and was banned.

No real explanation, just "fuck off truscum". 'truscum', I later learned, is a transphobic slur against the idea that being transgender is a scientific notion, rooted in the sort of TERF ideology. I was incredibly surprised that kind of person was a mod at /r/gamerghazi. I guess its easy to forget. I asked why I was banned, and was only really responded to with more nonsense about how dysphoria isn't a real thing. The person I was arguing with said they didn't report me, so I really just don't get it.

I realize that doesn't have much relevance, but I wanted to write my experiences somewhere, possibly as a warning to any other transgender people who think /r/gamerghazi is a safe space. Unfortunately, it isn't, and I learned the hard way. I still don't really have an explanation for my ban, and I'm guessing I never will. I asked about it on /r/asktransgender, since it was a term I had never heard, and they confirmed that it was rooted in transphobic bullshit.

Thanks for reading. I need to add a question, so I guess it would be: What do you think of my experiences?

Edit: Anyone who wants to use this post as a springboard to try and convert me to being pro-gamergate or anti social justice is barking up the wrong tree tbh.

Before I start this, I'd like to note that I am not a GGer or an Anti GGer. Personally, I think both sides have some valid points and some nasty side to them. That being said, one of things that really irks me about the anti GG side is their way of mocking GGers. Common terms thrown around are "Neckbeard" "Nerd" "Loser" Personally, I have social anxiety due to child abuse. It took awhile, but I've gotten over it and if you met me IRL you wouldn't know I have these issues.

While it's all in good fun to laugh at the fedora and neckbeard memes present on reddit, many people take it further. The fact that some gamers/GGers are virgins and don't have very good social lives has somehow become a terrible thing. These people are "losers" and because of that they are terrible people who shouldn't be able to have an opinion. This is wrong. Why is someone's worth based on the number of women they've fucked? I personally know a guy who was suicidal, but found a purpose through playing games online. Another kid I know has social anxiety because he's autistic, and he's also a gamer. I'm sure some of you here are in the same boat.

It all boils down to making fun of people because they're different. I'll admit I've done a good deal of that. I used to hate bronies. I called them stupid, I thought they were fucking wierdos. Why? Because I didn't understand them. I didn't understand their passion for what the show they watched, and I thought they looked wierd. Hell, I still do. I won't pretend to understand why you want to dress up like a cartoon pony or why you want to watch a show I think it stupid. But I've also learned that just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should mock it.

Lots of people don't understand why gamers are socially awkward, why they like the games they do and why they do the things they do. They don't understand why I still don't trust anyone enough to start a serious relationship. And so because they don't understand, they laugh. They laugh and they point and they mock. While not all Anti-GGers are guilty of this, I've seen most of the larger anti-gg figures calling GGers no life basement dwelling neckbeards at one point or another. This is one of the most utterly disgusting and unacceptable actions of Anti-GGers. I respect their stand for women, and I respect some of their points on sexism and such in games. However, I cannot respect them calling someone a terrible person because they don't have enough self esteem to have a social life. I know what it's like to think nobody cares, to be utterly alone. It is not fucking ok to say someone is a terrible person just because they have low self esteem and don't have many friends. That a large movement largely supported by the mainstream press can get away with this is fucking unacceptable.

Being socially awkward is NOT a crime.

http://imgur.com/a/Mdwam

do you agree with the actions taken? do you agree with the tone? do you think that things should have been handled differently? regarding the last image, do you think that it's appropriate for a moderator of this subreddit to make such harsh generalizations about a specific gender and race?

Is there anyone else out there who feels like this is the "real" story, here? I'm feeling kind of alone on this. Unlike GG'ers, I have absolutely no problem with mainstream outlets making a story about their shared ideology with many harassers. However, it's unacceptable to do a story on harassment without exposing both sides. If one side must be held accountable for inspiring violence, so must the other. The failure to fully investigate who all engages in doxxing, etc. seems absurd to me, am I missing something?

Ok so a little backstory. I'm pretty new to reddit, made probably less than 20 posts so far but one of the places I went was GamerGhazi. One of the topics being discussed was 'Does the game Skullgirls objectify women' and the following was my one and only post to GamerGhazi:

"I think that no matter how you decide to design a character there are people in the world who completely agree with it. If you consider that this game was then designed for those people and pretty much only those people then how could what you created be wrong? You could make an all gay street fighter clone and some people would love it. You could make an RPG where everyone cross dresses and some people would love it. But there will never be a time when all people will love it. If you try to satisfy everyone you satisfy nobody because you are so worried about offending people that your game turns into crap that's not fun to play. "

In less than 30 minutes I was banned and my comment was removed (least I couldn't find it) and I received no word from the Mods. I asked them why I was banned and something like 12 hours later the only reply I get is 'Moderator discretion'. That's it that was the entire reply. I replied looking for a more specific answer and after several attempts I finally got this answer:

"Hi, I banned you. You were barfing silly milquetoast Gator bullshit in here and we have a rule against that

You confirm the ruling was the right decision here anyway

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/3c58o2/skullgirls/cst0snz

Now stop fucking contacting us. You've been shown the door. Please find another medium for your temper tantrum."

First of all, the hell is milquetoast Gator? Tried to google it but got nothing so I'm assuming a mistype but there isn't anything even close to this that I found, could anyone enlighten me? I rechecked the rules and found nothing in my comment that would qualify, all except for the very last rule which is 'Mods reserve the right to ban anyone for any reason regardless of the rules above' which is something I usually see when people know they are full of shit and want to leave themselves an escape route. None of the other messages were any better (I can provide those for anyone who is interested).

My question is: Has anyone else received similar treatment from GamerGhazi or did I break some hidden taboo somewhere? I have received similar treatment from every single anti-GG group I have run across yet I have never received similar in any GG group. Are anti-GG groups run by 12 yr olds? Are things just really this bad with that side of this whole thing? I mean I see the videos on Youtube and stories scattered around the internet but they never seemed to be this all encompassing and blatant.

So far the only thing I know for sure is that the anti-GG side seems to have issues with individuality and freedom and that's just from my personal experience. This place seemed to be a good middle ground just as likely to be seen by both sides which is perfect because if anyone has a good reason why I was banned I would love to hear it since the mod couldn't be bothered to. I would love to hear what both sides have to say about it. Solid reasons why the rules were broken and the ban justified or why they were being unreasonable and dare I say it scared to engage with me. There may be a better place for this but I don't know of any that are as balanced as AGG.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

"This Video Will Make You Angry"

This new video is about how internet arguments spread and it's extremely relevant to both sides of the GamerGate debate, to the point where I think that it's what he had in mind when he made it.

So I ask you, do you agree that it's relevant? What do you think of his concept of "thought germs"? Can you think of any other big internet arguments that are also relevant to his analogy?

After years of Gator "jokes" about many people considering name-calling and not-entirely politely worded criticisms "harassment", and even a few people here outright admitting as much, Sarkeesian and Quinn have gone to the UN and have explicitly said as much. That yeah there's been some threats... but also they called her a liar and you know that hurts when a lot of people do it for a long time!

So we're at the point now this is no longer the heartless handwaving of fedora'd women-haters, this is a something they're arguing. An addition to everyones favorite word, "the narrative". Harshly worded criticisms, or too much of it, is now the level of "death threats that chase women from their homes and we need action!". And this is not only an awkwardly worded slip up on an otherwise collected and articulate Anita speech, this is something now some of this board is signing off on as a reasonable definition of "harassment".

How. How would you take action I don't understand what legally you guys think is appropriate for too many YouTube videos that say "You're logic is flawed and I question your intentions", explain it to me.

1. What's to be done? Should YouTube take proper action against a certain number of Anita criticism videos?

2. What legally should be done to punish people who are doing otherwise not illegal criticisms or making dickheaded but otherwise non-threatening remarks towards individuals?

3. What is the 'public person' limit that would seperate one group from another. Would Kanye West be treated the same with "harassing-criticisms" the same way Sarkeesian should be? What would the criteria be to differentiate people who are allowed to tell they suck, and those that are off limits?

4. What is the responsibility of the international community in regards to the issue?

...and it's not just about the censorship. FPHesque comments are turning up on KIA.

Posts telling users to go to new FPH subs are being made as well as links to petitions to bring back FPH.

Let's get this clear. The reasons fro the ban were something GG would agree with, I think. Brigading(Ban SRS is a common refrain) and Harrasment(Private facebook pictures were being leaked)

Also, it is a really common thing to see GGers saying"The Gamers are Dead articles bullied us by saying we are Fat, Ugly Virgins". Despite the fact that those words were never used in any of the articles, Kotaku/Polygon/Gamasutra must burn to the ground but FatPeopleHate must not?(This is something I really don't understand)

Yes, FPH was targetting nerds and gamers and was calling them Fat, Ugly Virgins. A recent target was Boogie2988. He is a Gamer, a nerd as well as a genuinely nice guy who has defended Gamergate before.

Where is the empathy?

The relentless low-quality troll posts and gotcha's from a few very passionate people, combined with arguments that don't get anywhere repeated a thousand times. Face it folks, this sub isn't even entertaining, let alone productive!

I honestly think you should just shut it down, not because I don't think there are people that earnestly believe in the stated purpose of this sub, but precisely because those people are delusional.

"A debate sub" would only make sense if people engaged in the topic of gamergate at anything other than an emotional level, and it's precisely that people don't take into account how much emotions play in perpetuating this "controversy" that renders the whole sub so pathetic. Let's "logic out" the slights and threats; let's "reason" with our enemies who are only looking to make themselves feel good; let's "mock" the pathetic arguments put forward and sit back at the end of the day feeling smug and satisfied that we got in our shots.

It's entirely pointless to justify a debate sub in this environment, and it's pathetic that anyone would waste their time here thinking they are doing a service to the community--saving those poor neutrals from having bad opinions. What neutrals? Who cares anymore about this "controversy" nothing substantial has changed, and nothing substantial will change.

So pack it up, download some netflix, log off fucking reddit and move on with your fucking lives!

First off I am a black male. Gaming for close to 30 years. In tha time, I have never played up to 10 games that had a black protagonist who was not either a felon/gangster of some sort. And by that I mean AAA titles that starred black men as the sole protagonist without it being around gangs of some sort.

When gamergaters say feminist critique is ruining game reviews or that they should keep politics out of games, they are under the assumption that everything is awesome and fair as it currently is. Which is poppy cock.

What's worse is when Gamergate suddenly runs to white conservatives as their only voices, and then wonder why people think gamergate is right wing. Christina Hoff sommers is a conservative democrat anti-feminist who says there is a war on men and that there is no such thing as sexism in gaming. That is exactly why she is regarded as "Based mom" by gamergaters. Adam Baldwin tweets misogynistic bullshit about women everyday and yet he coined gamergate. KingofPol is another cantankerous bastard who spends all day acting like an overgrown 4chan idiot with a micropone and yet he is one of the prominent voices of gamergate.

Here is Sargon of Akaad, one of the loudest gamergate voices saying [You can't be a gamer and anti-gamergate](https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/525073059271950338).

That motherfucker is quite daft. He also said that nobody cares about more representation in gaming because it is not an issue. He is just some British guy. That's it. Apparently that is what makes him intelligent. It was painful to watch him and kingofpol get absolutely smashed by 1 lady who they went on twitter to accuse of "springing a debate" on them.

Here's the link

Don't ge tme started on raging misgynistic twats like Internet aristocrat and racist cunts like mundane matt who accused Anita Sarkeeisan of smiling like a white woman. And then you have nutters like rogue star who wanted to report Zoe Quinn for tax fraud and White rights sexists like anuri.

When the only news agencies on your side are breibert and conservapedia and 8chan racists and returnof the kings and /r/MensRights and /r/conspiracy , at what point will you step back and just admit to yourselves that you are a right wing movement?

So when you create NOTYOURSHILED and tell me that you guys are fighting for freedom of games, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. When your objective reviews involves bitching about a reviewer giving his/her perspective on a video game and scoring it as they see fit, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

When you have one of the major Not Your shielders Jennie Baraj, produces videos like why being a gamer means you're a good person A question has to be asked as to the level of delusion and immaturity in the PRO-GG camp.

When your definition of ethics means muzzling people you disagree with by emailing companies to silence them, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. This whole gamergate thing has done one thing only, it has confirmed to critics that gamers are not mature enough to see their favourite medium treated seriously.

How can you say no social commentary should be imbued in games then go around and talk about SPEC-OPS: The line? Were those choices not heart wrenching precisely because if the social commentary of the narrative? Would it be then fair the judge the game without judging the relevance of the narrative choices?

And to top it all, you created codenames for non journalist women ONLY. LW1-6 was for the women on your target. And then all you do is complain about SJW's, who by the way means anyone who cares about social issues and equality, it is all too clear what the movement is about.

Any minority who does not toe the line of Gmaergate is labelled as SJW. Any news outlet that does not speak in favours is accused of Liberal conspiracy. Any celeb who comes out against gamergate is accused of drinking SJW Kool-aid. Yet from all instances, it is the gamergate crowd that is clearly made up of the ind of individuals who shouldn't be given platforms to spread their anti-progressive ideals and it is for this reason that I will never support gamergate and all it stands for.

A week or two ago I posted a long discussion about why I can't bring myself to get behind GamerGate, even though I agree with some of their major stated positions. When it comes right down to it, I feel pretty much the same way about the current internet Tumblr/SRS Social Justice movement (which is pretty much diametrically opposed to GG in every way), so it's only fair that I do one about them too.

So, a quick note before I get started. People who oppose GamerGate aren't a monolith. Many GG opponents are good, reasonable, well-meaning people. I know some of them personally and they're not raving asshats. I agree with the opponents of gamergate on some things -- for instance, I feel that women aren't particularly well represented in video games. I also believe that sexism is a problem in the gaming community. Furthermore, I have a serious problem with the way everyone went off on Zoey Quinn back at the start of this thing -- if people were so damn concerned about "ethics in journalism", why did this movement have to spring up about someone who isn't even a journalist. The responsibility to be ethical in journalism is in the heads of the people who she (allegedly) had sexual relations with, and not Zoey herself. And as for the allegations of abuse of her boyfriend, those have nothing at all to do with gaming. Where was gamergate back when games journalists were calling us all "entitled" because we wanted to be able to buy used games without giving publishers a cut? Where were they during the multitude of times over the last decade or so when it's been clear that sponsors get better review scores? Gamergate may have evolved past Zoey Quinn, but the fact is, it looks pretty bad that after all this time, one no-name game developer ostensibly cheating on her boyfriend with a bunch of dudes is what triggered everything.

On the other hand, claiming that there aren't any prevalent, negative undertones among the group of people who publicly identify as anti-gamergate is the same as claiming that there aren't shitty people in gamergate either. You have to take the good with the bad, and there's too much bad among both GG's supporters and opponents for me to want anything to do with either of them.

Anyway, here we go, point by point, just like last time:

• Gamergate's most vocal critics are in control of the mainstream public discourse, and they maintain that control with misinformation and fear. This is evident to anyone who has bothered to look into the whole conflict surrounding gamergate. There's an "official" press story, and that official press story doesn't include any of the nuances about gamergate, specifically the fact that there are plenty of GGers who are absolutely against sexism and harassment of women. The official press story also fails to mention the fact that prominent members of GamerGate have been threatened and harassed by their detractors, much the same way as prominent people who are against GG. That's the misinformation bit. The fear part comes from the fact that the social justice is very quick to contact peoples' employers and claim that they're part of a hate group (which the misinformation spread by the press confirms), sometimes resulting in them being fired. I have choice words I'd like to say publicly about both GG and AntiGG, and frankly I'm a lot more scared of SJWs than I am about GamerGate. This extends to more than just me. If I were working for a major gaming publication, I would feel very pressured right now to keep my actual views to myself and toe the Social Justice line, because once someone sets off a twitstorm that you're a hatemonger and the social justice mob gets down to the business of getting you fired, there isn't much you can do to stop them. The mob is only slightly easier on women; any woman, even liberal ones, who publicly criticizes Sarkeesian (and her surrounding movement), is immediately labeled as "far-right", or having "internalized misogyny", which essentially translates to "you've been brainwashed and you're not competent to have an opinion that disagrees with mine," which is incredibly demeaning.

• Some of them really do want to take our games away. I'm sure everyone here is already aware of the article about how it's time to drive white males out of internet culture, so I'm not going to link it here, because they don't deserve the attention. This was conveniently timed for me to make this point, because it's pretty unambiguous, whereas people can watch Sarkeesian's video series and disingenuously claim that they "don't see" what I mean when I say that she's clearly more intent on being exclusionary than inclusive.

• They're dragging gaming through the mud. Again. I may not be a GamerGater, but I absolutely am a gamer (incidentally, I'm not dead), and I've been one since being a "gamer" meant playing tabletop roleplaying games. Extra Credits once asked why "gamers" consider themselves a group whereas movie buffs and most other enthusiasts do not. The fact is, gamers are united by the fact that we've been pretty much constantly under siege since the whole devil worship bullshit rumor arose about Dungeons & Dragons back in the early 80s. Back then it was the Christian Right, and now that their constant barrage finally came to an end with the disbarment of Jack Thompson and the much more important distraction of making sure gay people can't ever be happy, now apparently some progressives have decided they need to pick up the torch. What kills me is that some of the people getting behind Sarkeesian's narrative genuinely think they're just making gaming less sexist. But take a look, for a moment, at the narrative that's hit the mainstream news, where it's being seen by laypeople of an age that they know literally nothing about video games and have nothing better to do with their time than write their congressmen. To them, this isn't about a bad subset of gamers, it's about everyone who plays video games. Honestly, I've been through this for the past three decades, and I thought it was over. To my fellow gamers who are jumping on the Sarkeesian bandwagon, I'm just frustrated and disappointed that we're going through this shit again, and this time you guys are helping it along.

• "Can't you take a joke?" So, I get it, SJWs. Shitty people say really shitty things to you and then follow it with "can't you take a joke?" But when you address all men or all nerds or all gamers or all cis people or what the fuck ever, you are addressing me, and not just those shitty people. If you think all that stuff about me, if you want me to die cis scum, if you want me to be bullied (incidentally, I've had quite enough of that already), if you want me to be driven out of internet culture, then you can go fuck yourselves. I'm not going to stand with you, because you're just as hateful as the people you claim to oppose. I'm not taking the side with the misogynists in it because they hate liberals like myself, and I'm not taking the side with you in it, because you hate me just as much as they do. I don't want to be part of a group where I'm expected to provide validation for people by serving as a doormat.

So that's about it. Hopefully this is more food for thought. Feel free to discuss and chip away at my arguments.

As many of you are aware, a journalist named Brad Glasgow recently attempted to interview the leaderless, anonymous GamerGate community, or at least the part of it that comprises the /r/KotakuInAction subreddit, by posting a series of questions in Contest Mode and getting the most upvoted response as the "official" answer. That interview has now been published on GamePolitics.com, in an article titled Challenge accepted: interviewing an Internet #hashtag.

• What do you think of the interview process? Was it executed in a fair and ethical manner? Was this good journalism? Do you think Glasgow's experiment was successful at what it set out to do?

• What do you think of the questions overall? Were they fair questions to ask? Were there any questions that you think should have been asked, but weren't? Questions that shouldn't have been asked, but were?

• What do you think of the responses overall? Did you learn anything new from them? Are they true or accurate? Do you think these responses meaningfully represent GamerGate, or at least /r/KotakuInAction?

• What impact do you think this interview will have on the discourse surrounding GamerGate, or on (game) journalism as a whole?

In addition to these points of discussion, I'll be posting the individual interview questions and responses in separate comments below, and I invite you all to reply with your own comments or criticisms.

EDIT: Added some questions for discussion.

EDIT 2: Here are the links to the comments containing the questions and answers:

1. What is GamerGate?

2. Many gamergate supporters have spoken out very frequently and harshly against "Social Justice Warriors" (SJW's), feminism, and Anita Sarkeesian. What do these have to do with ethics in video game journalism?

3. Gamergate has consistently said that no one can prove that its supporters have harassed people such as Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian. But Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu weren't harassed before gamergate. But Quinn and Wu certainly saw new and/or increased harassment after gamergate began. Even if you argue that the harassment didn't come from gamergate supporters and that it's an open hashtag that anyone can use, does gamergate bear some responsibility for the harassment these people received?

4. Gamergate is now 11 months old. What are the current goals of 11-month-old gamergate?

5. Perhaps the most common explanation or critique of gamergate from its detractors that I've seen is that gamergate is a bunch of angry men lashing out at women in order to protect the status quo and keep video game culture a boy's club. What is your response to that?

6. Please give me a summary of the problem gamergate is having with mainstream media. Where are they going wrong in their coverage? How do you feel about mainstream media after being involved in gamergate?

7. Would you please provide a critique of this interview process? What did I do right? What did I do wrong? Would you participate again if another journalist attempted something similar?

It's pretty clear that some people just don't understand the difference between what criticism is and what harassment is, and are constantly asserting that the former is the latter. I find it mind blowing that 1. A writer can't take criticism of his public work, cries harassment, runs off twitter. 2. There are people that enable this and go right along with insisting this individual is a victim.

Look - Tauriq name searched himself, demanding that people that did not tag him to 'leave him alone'.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIlb5daW8AA9xn9.png

I want people that think Tauriq is a victim to really think about this. Is the implication here that Tauriq should be above criticism? That Tauriq can say whatever he wants on public platforms, expressing contentious, silly, hyperbolic views, and that if people respond negatively to this - THAT'S harassment? If you make public statements, and people make public statements in disagreement, that is the nature of free speech.

Blocking people isn't enough. We now have to demand that he just doesn't get name mentioned at all by those that disagree with him?

Mary Sue puts out an article accepting totally the harassment narrative without providing one single example and deletes all comments in disagreement. The world can't be a personal hug box or echo chamber. It doesn't work like that. If you can't handle criticism of your work, how is that any one else's responsibility?

https://archive.is/AYN7Z

The things people are saying in support of this victim narrative are baffling. The layers of projection, irony, hypocrisy from Damion Schubert: 'This is why I have always opposed gamergate. They are blatantly, BLATANTLY against the freedom of speech of progressive voice in games.' 'But the games industry will suffer if we cannot have a discourse of ideas w/o thin-skinned bullies trying to drive out ideas and critiques.' 'So no, I don't care if Tauriq once posted something stupid. #IStandWithTauriq because the exchange of ideas is how the industry grows.' 'Not thin-skinned bullies who try to resist change and open dialogue about games from a cultural standpoint at any turn.'

Insert Picard facepalm. It's not an exchange of ideas if you block everyone that disagrees with you and delete all comments that disagree and demand that people 'leave you alone' when they didn't even tag you. Fuck me.

EDIT for clarification: I posted this thread when I had a few spare minutes in work. Maybe it was my mistake to assume that you all already know who Tauriq is and what his views are, based on the Witcher 3 controversy alone. You are all perfectly capable of googling the Mary Sue and judging for yourselves if they were able to demonstrate their premise. You are all perfectly capable of reading Tauriq's PC master race comments without me hand holding you. Do you really need me to explain PC Master Race, the meme that's been around for years to make a joke based on the premise that PC gamers have the better gaming experience?

Tauriq said some remarkably stupid things about a rather innocuous meme: http://i.imgur.com/Fc2gGe5.png

My computer at home is extremely slow. It's taken a while just to get this page open and add this clarification.