#Gamergate – Where David Hill Went Wrong

[Cartoon from plebcomics on Tumblr, which remains hilarious and which you should check out]

NB: This blog is getting more hits than most previous things I’ve done. So I’m going to use the opportunity to direct you to my IndieGoGo fundraiser for a Chronicles of Gor tabletop RPG and worldbook with art by Michael Manning (hopefully). Please consider even a small donation if you enjoy this article or any of my others. Link HERE.

*Rolls up my sleeves*

Hi. I make games. I write about games. I get paid to make games. I used to get paid to write about games. I walked away from paid writing about games, because it was a pretty shitty, corrupt, jaded process that really flew in the face of why I wanted to write about games.

Hi, I make games. I write about games. I get paid to make games. I’ve helped out in the support for games and I know plenty who write about games. It is true that it is a pretty shitty, corrupt, jaded process and it has been for a long time.

I’ve talked to a lot of pro- #GamerGate  people over the past few days. I’ve tried to hear out as many as I could. It was hard. I want to first address why that was hard, then I want to try to address some of the trends between the reasonable, cool people I spoke with. 

I’ve talked to a lot of anti-gamergate people since it began. I’ve tried to hear them out but it has pretty much universally been a hate-fest with all manner of misrepresentations, deflections, dodges, hedges and – ironically – derailings. There are seemingly no honest, capable, thoughtful people on the ‘other side’ of this debate.

First off, it’s very difficult to wade through the hate. The signal to noise ratio is not good. In fact, it’s terrible. If you’re reasonable, and you want to have a conversation, it’s difficult to do that when the person is hearing ten death threats and thirty insults for every single reasonable message. That mars any perception of credibility for a group that’s invested heavily in credibility and ethics. 

I find myself repeatedly asking this question of the SJW side of the debate.

Why are you taking trolls seriously?

No, really. It’s an adage practically as old as the public internet that you ‘don’t feed the trolls’ and yet I see this happening constantly on the SJW side and not just in relation to gamergate. Sarkeesian has practically made a living from taking trolls seriously and playing it up while begging for donations. I know you’ll call that ‘victim blaming’ but it does bear consideration, especially given she’s a known fraud with links to pyramid schemes and scams like handwriting analysis.

Block, report, mute, we have the tools to deal with trolls and we know how to use them, so why not use them? Could it be that trolls give the appearance of evidence that games are filled with misogynistic social outcasts and thus appear to support your thesis? A tad exploitative no?

Trolls are an issue, but it’s a separate issue. They’ll flock to any controversy to wind people up and the best thing to do is to ignore them.

It’s not like the harassment has been one-sided, HERE. The difference, of course, being that a lot of the harassment of pro-gamergate people is sincere.

It’s not exactly like David himself is immune to being… trollish (the target here being me, and not for the first time, so I’ll admit bias against the man based on his track record and espoused beliefs).


Or retweeting trolls and abuse come to that. Tablehop there is a notorious abuser under a variety of accounts.

Now, I’ve heard a few people say, “Point out the threats and insults when they happen! We’ll report those people! They don’t speak for us!” I’ve seen numerous people pointing these threats and harassments out. A couple of very bad times, I saw some people jump in, report, and otherwise shut down the threats. But more often than not (by a wide margin) what I saw was apologism and excuses for the threats and harassment. I saw a lot of “but this time it’s warranted!” style messages. That doesn’t help anyone. That doesn’t build dialogue. 

Why are you taking trolls seriously? What about the abuse from your side? What about YOUR abuse and trolling? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

So, if you want to know why there are prominent journalists right now talking about how gamer culture is toxic, and how gamers as a label are dead, this is why. Because even if you’re rational, passionate, and wanting good things, your voice is being drowned out by loud, hateful, toxic people. 

And because these journalists, even from broadsheets, don’t take the time to do even five minutes of research, exposing their own lack of professionalism.

A couple of days ago, I posted an email from the San Francisco Police Department verifying a police report placed by Anita Sarkeesian. Why? Because a muckraker accused her of lying, and drummed up a BUNCH of hate. His message had over six hundred reshares. His thread had dozens of people talking about how she needs to be imprisoned, how she needs to be shot, and how she’s… you get the picture. So, I fact-checked.

If this is true, good. However it raises questions such as why the reporter and others who contacted the police and FBI were told something different. So we’re now in a position of having multiple queries saying she didn’t and one – yours – saying she did.  So where does that leave us exactly? Back in ‘he said-she said’ with it coming down to sides.

NB: It turns out the Breitbart reporter broke this on Twitter (the FBI involvement) the day before David.

Of course, either way, this doesn’t alter suspicion that some of the troll threats were manufactured.

And I posted the results of that fact-checking. Did I get six hundred people recanting their threats, insults, and accusations? No. I got a couple dozen people threatening me, and a fuckton of people insulting me for DARING to fact-check a journalist. When, mind you, the Gamergate movement is supposedly about holding journalists accountable. Do you know how many messages came up to the effect of, “Oh. I shouldn’t have jumped the gun and accused her without the facts?” None. None at all. 

Why are you taking trolls seriously?

I also don’t think you’re quite presenting what happened in an honest manner, but rather with typical bias. As I point out above, that’s only turned this into a he-said/she-said thing with no likely resolution in sight for the time being. I have tweeted the Breitbart reporter in search of more clarification.

Part of the problem here is that there is a mob of amateur sleuths trying to get at the truth because the so-called professionals have utterly failed them.

So understand why a lot of us say, “This group of people is toxic.” It’s because a large majority of what we’re experiencing is people doing very toxic things. There are some reasonable voices. But from where we stand, they’re a stark minority. The movement is about accountability and ethics in journalism, yet the ONLY reaction I got from fact-checking a journalist was hate, denial, threats, and insults. From where I stand, calling Gamergate toxic and hateful isn’t a far stretch at all, because it appears to be doing toxic and hateful things.

From where gamergate, and more broadly the opposition to SJW censorship stands the SJW grouping is toxic, for much the same reasons. The important difference, of course, is that the majority of SJWs don’t appear to be insincere trolls. By your own standard we could hold up social justice (minus the warriors) as toxic, oppressive and hateful because of the actions of Tumblr SJWs and people like yourself.

Yes, I’m aware ‘SJW’ isn’t the most polite term, but it’s the best one that we have to describe this extremist, censorious mindset. As morally conservative in its own way as any evangelical right radicalism of the Reagan era.

Yes, there’s some positive. Yay, charities. But that’s drowned out. And ironically, when we hear about a charity or otherwise positive thing, it’s universally used as a method of attack. For example, there was a period where the Gamergate folks had it in their head that Zoe Quinn was lying about charitable donations. They’d trot out, “We aren’t lying con artists! We really donate to charities!” Essentially, weaponizing charity. Then, I also heard a lot of people bragging when Zoe’s donations were verified officially by the charities, because a group of (allegedly) thousands of people were able to donate more than a single independent game designer. Like seriously, very petty shit. 

But also rather valid. Exasperation at an abusive public figure was more effective than their own attempts to raise consciousness and elicit donations. Ironic. You’re showing your biased lens again here. It’s equally valid to say that the group responded to injustices by correcting them. The interference with The Fine Young Capitalists crowdfunding project for one and the apparent – at the time – scamming of charitable donations on the other.

Even more positively some sites have responded to gamergate with tighter ethical guidelines, most notably The Escapist which has lead the way on this (disclosure, I’ve been talking to the general manager there about Gamergate and related issues for a little while).

So, corruption in journalism. Can I let you in on a secret? We want to have that conversation. We all do, with maybe a couple of exceptions. This is a conversation we’ve tried to have, and wanted to have for years. But why aren’t we just sitting down and talking it over and smiling and playing games and shutting up about the feminisms? Basically, it’s because we’re having two completely different conversations. One’s an insider conversation, informed about the industry. The other is an outsider conversation, based on half-truths, misunderstandings, and what we see as skewed priorities.

We are, indeed, having two separate conversations and yes, the corruption has been an issue for years, though it has nudged over the parapet before the discussion has never completely taken hold.


Well, I have my suspicions. Journalists have done very well out of the status quo, sites depend on the corruption not being overtly exposed because then they lose previews, early access and free demo copies (which kills their ability to hype and do their job properly).

Why is it different this time around and how does it relate to ‘the feminisms’? Because gamers are fed up of being lectured and games being analysed on arbitrary political orthodoxy rather than their actual merits as games. This has been going on for a while now, though it first really penetrated my consciousness around 2010 and it’s not just happening in games media. We’re saturated with this kind of ideological gatekeeping and abuse in games, tabletop games, fiction, film, TV. Everything we like is bad and awful and it brainwashes us into being violent, misogynistic, racist… etc… etc… etc.

And people took it for a long time, because they want these kind of geek spaces to be inclusive and people are evangelical about their hobbies. They want other people to like them. Still, nothing seemed to satisfy, nothing seemed to quiet the abuse and so resentment began to build.

The indie scene should just mean independent, but as with tabletop games and with music it took on a character of its own and became quite ideological. At least people were actually making games but a lot of the developers with an SJW slant sold their games and ideas more on abuse of other people’s tastes than the merits of their own. David does this himself as well. He’s to be praised for making his own games in his own way to his own ideas, but to be damned for selling that off the back of abuse of similar efforts made by others (yes, me included). So it has been with the computer game indie scene.

The corruption within the Indie computer game scene has taken hold for a variety of reasons then, including the above.

Gamers have become pissed off because of the following:

  • Abuse of the community.
  • Resentment in the community.
  • Politicisation of reviews.
  • Indies relative lack of sway.
  • Indies being supposed to be better and professing better ideology (hypocrisy)
  • The community collectively reaching the end of its tether.

On our side, a lot of journalists hate the nepotism, and most importantly, they hate the relationship the industry has with journalism. Because a while back ago, “games journalism” was essentially coopted as a marketing arm for certain AAA publishers. At that point, AAA publishers became gatekeepers for success in games journalism. It’s awful, because we want to be talking critically. We want to be looking at games in different lights. We want to approach these works of art as works of art, and not just as the next success or flop. But that can’t happen on any large scale, because of that corruption, because of the commercialism of it all.

So not as games then. There’s another source of the divide too.

Gamers seemingly want games to – at least primarily – be gauged on their qualities as games. The value for money, the longevity, the replayability, the sound, the graphics, the story. Not the degree to which it conforms with arbitrary ideological stances and the commissars that seek to enforce that.

Let’s take an example unrelated to the current mire of gender issues as a case-in-point.

Bioshock was a fairly conventional game in a lot of ways, a run-and-gun first person shooter of the type we’ve seen many times before. The graphics were good, the water effects fantastic, the scenery and level design inspiring, the story stand-out good. By most accounts a pretty great game and a large part of what made it great was its story of a failed utopia, a collapsed ‘Galt’s Gulch’.

Imagine, however, a review written by a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian extremist who worshipped at the altar of Ayn Rand. How might they review such a game? Would such a review be worth anyone’s time in trying to work out whether they want to purchase it any longer? Would them complaining that the representation of Objectivism was unrealistic (in an undersea city where you have pseudo-magical powers) be meaningful in any real way?

That doesn’t mean that we should ignore the presence of the ideological underpinnings and representation in the game, just that we shouldn’t pass judgement on it. It’s worth noting and mentioning, whether it agrees with our personal ideology or not, but it’s not worth damning it and harranguing your audience based on your own political slant.

Ideological reviews are really just shitty reviews.

The way a lot of the Gamergate stuff looks to us really looks like some strange bizarro world where the games industry works completely different than it really does.

The question is more should it work that way?

The biggest targets of Gamergate have been people who are frankly powerless in the games industry. People like Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, they are not gatekeepers. They are not able to enact any real, significant influence on the industry. Most independent game jams, awards, and exhibitions are small groups of people, trying to make names for themselves in their little ponds. That’s how independent artists work in pretty much every creative field. They can’t compete with the game industry, so they’re trying to carve out their own little micro industry, where they do their own things and have a captive audience. 

ZQ isn’t really a ‘target’ of gamergate per se. Her actions may have sparked and sustained it, but it’s not about going after her per se. It’s about going after bad practice and ideological demagoguery. As such she remains a target only because she continuously puts herself forward and because she’s linked to so many dodgy dealings. Fish is pretty much just a pseudo-troll at this point.

Are these people gatekeepers? New, young, up-and-coming devs seem to think so because they’re part of cliques that collectively do wield power. They’re also part of the SJW mob which seems to claim a lot of journalists who very much are gatekeepers. Again, if you look back, their niche is carved out primarily – it seems – by hating on what other people love and less upon doing what they love and giving it wings.

It’s gone beyond just the indies now though and into journalism and through that there will be an effect on the triple-A’s because new disclosure policies will also affect AAA reviews.

Gamergate did that. It’s a huge, positive step for everyone. Is it enough? Probably not. We do need to carry on working and bring AAAs under scrutiny too.

“SJWs” aren’t affecting widescale change in video games. There’s some minor change here and there. But most of it is shit that, if you weren’t aware was changed, you wouldn’t know was any different. If they get what they want, and that’s a big if, the end result will be a few more games featuring a little more diversity, and maybe less rape and objectification. This will never, ever approach social justice change in major titles like Call of Duty. The SJWs know that. The Call of Duty developers are making Call of Duty. Nobody expects them to make something else. There’s room for Call of Duty. Nobody is trying to take it away. Fuck, the ideal is ultimately MORE GAMES. This is a good thing. Experimental games move the industry forward, and make your core games better. Those games get to be the testing ground where we try out new ideas in a less risk adverse environment. 

Here’s where we disagree. SJWs are, indeed, having a profound and negative effect across geek media and it’s primarily exercised through niche journalism. As noted before it has happened in tabletop gaming, it has happened in SF&F (Hugo awards, SFWA shenanigans etc), TV, Film. There is a concerted effort to affect change and it is profoundly dishonest, manipulative and predicated upon ideological wishful thinking rather than facts. We’ve all been through this before in the past with satanic panics, Jack Thompson and even Elvis’ hips.

Here’s the problem. The one thing I can still praise David for is that he does, actually, go out and make games. He doesn’t just carp from the sidelines, he actually tries to make things happen and to put his material out there. However it is deeply ironic to hear him echo my sentiment that people should just ‘MAKE MORE GAMES’ when he and others have specifically tried to prevent me from doing so, and not just me but others. This done via harassment campaigns, petitions to publishers and other means.

It’s deeply hypocritical.

If that is what were going on ‘MOAR GAMEZ!’ I think we’d all be happy, but SJWs seem intent on decrying, damning and demonising what everyone else is doing and claiming that these media are somehow responsible for evil and bad things in the world.

It seems, to me, we’ve heard this tune before.

Anita Sarkeesian? So far, a writer for an already very diverse game was influenced to cop to a trope in his games, and say he won’t be using it again. Fundamentally, the game is still a manshooter game. Just, one story element will be swapped out for something else in the future, instead of recycling the same old thing. That’s pretty much as far as her influence has gone. 

Sarkeesian is this generation’s Jack Thompson, Fredric Wertham or Pat Pulling. She is a known fraud who is somehow still being lionised by mainstream media and held up as a saintly example. She wields influence, sadly, and while there is room for discussion on these topics her profoundly dishonest way of approaching it and the fact she’s a known fraud make her the wrong person to do it. She also makes the mistake of the Thompsons, Werthams and Pullings of trying to claim fictive experiences affect real world interactions. She’s just another mad preacher claiming that Pokemon teaches evolution and leads helpless children to hell.

Here’s why: She’s not trying to enact and force change. She’s pointing out trends, the way an art critic does. Some people might look to what she’s saying, and ask for more exceptions from that trend. Some developers might see those trends in their work, and shift away. But she’s never once said that games featuring sexist tropes should not be made. She even makes explicitly clear in every one of her videos that playing games with sexist tropes is okay, it’s not wrong to have fun with those games. But, certain trends do influence attitudes, according to numerous scientific studies. She doesn’t say these games will make you sexist. That would be stupid, since she, and numerous SJW types, have played these games. If she was saying that, and she’s not, she would have to follow up her videos with, “I played this game. It made me sexist.” 

Yes, she is (5:10 side by side comparison with Thompson), and she’s part of a continuum of people who have co-opted the public discussion of games with this material and slag off their own audience in so doing. They are absolutely trying to change games, with the explicit and laughable purpose of: “dismantling hegemonic masculinity through intimate friendships. Tearing down those emotional walls that are part of the infrastructure of gendered oppression.”

The DiGRA transcripts are hilarious and horrifying at the same time. Apologies for linking to a video, but other sources and links keep getting taken down. HERE.

Do you know what else this focus on Anita’s doing? It’s making your games worse. And I’m not saying, “Oh, if you leave Anita alone, she’ll make games better”. No. But right now, AAA game executives see people like Anita calling for diversity in games, and they’re seeing people like Gamergate attacking them vehemently. They see SO much hate. They see 650 people retweeting the guy claiming she lied about a police report. This tells them that the market doesn’t want diversity. This tells them to double down on boring, scruffy 30-something male protagonist with a dark past, blah, blah. When we look at games like Watch Dogs, and we think they could have done better if they were a little more ambitious, understand that people shitting on “SJWs” causes that risk averse, milquetoast game design. 

Only if they’re not paying attention. The market does want diversity, they don’t want to be lectured on how awful they are if they decide to play Lollipop Chainsaw or Dragon’s Crown. What they see when they look at SJWs is that no matter what they do it will never be enough and it will end up making games less diverse and imaginative, not more. Free expression needs defending FROM SJWs, not BY them. If you doubt that enforcing (whether by the mob or legislation) a code on games makers will smash diversity, history has a lesson for you about the Comics Code.

You can have discussions about Anita’s points. But understand that she’s making critique. A lot of it is subjective. A lot of it relies on specific definitions that she gives. For example, it’s popular to attack her use of Hitman as an example of Women as Background Decoration. However, the only way it’s not a valid example is if you’re not actually using her definition. Essentially, you’re throwing out her thesis and applying a different thesis to her examples. That’s not fair, and it’s not academically sound.

Screaming ‘misogyny!’ and misrepresenting games, removing context etc is not criticism. Nor is politicised polemicism criticism. Even if she had a good point it would be lost in the fact that – again this needs pointing out – she’s a known fraud. It’s popular to attack her use of Hitman because it is, again, presented sans context and it’s not how anyone – other than her it seems – reacts to the game. Her thesis is flat out wrong and her methodology is deliberately and explicitly biased. The counter-criticism is absolutely valid.

But have these discussions! Just focus on the art, the trends, and the culture. Don’t focus on the person. Because if your goal is debunking her, you’ve already lost. Right now, people are throwing so much shit at her, hoping it sticks. Seriously. A journalist literally investigated whether or not she actually made a police report when people were threatening her life, and another prominent blogger demanded police report numbers from her. Neither of these people are entitled to that information. They’re trying so hard to catch her up in a lie, that they’re losing sight of what they’re doing, and how silly and unethical it looks. Why does Anita have to be discredited, if her points are not valid? If her arguments are wrong, discuss them. 

Isn’t that what you’re doing – on a larger scale – by conflating gamergate with the trolls? In that case its dishonest, but with Sarkeesian she is the public face of this sex-negative, feminist and SJW ideological censorship that is trying to be enacted. Why go after her reports? Because she is suspected of making up many of them and essentially profiting by being a professional victim. Exposing her with direct evidence that this is so shows (more) dishonesty on her part.

Right now, publishers are buying reviews. Right now, publishers are giving large amounts of money and other perks to journalists in order to skew the public perception and influence, both positively and negatively, game sales. Right now, Metacritic is being used to determine whether or not designers get to keep their jobs. Right now, AAA executives are cutting women and LGBT characters out of games in development, because of “the core demographic”. These are huge problems. These are problems we want to talk about. These are problems we want to fix. 

And also right now ideologues are colluding in an attempt to control the dialogue around games and prosecute a political agenda. This is the fallacy of relative privation.

Yes, these issues need looking at (though you made a rod for your own back with the representation issue) but that doesn’t excuse what’s going on in games journalism or amongst the indies.

We aren’t going to smile and nod while hundreds of people dogpile a couple of people’s sex lives. We’re not going to cheer you on while muckrakers are hounding people for answers to stupid, invasive questions they shouldn’t be asking. We want a better industry. But we feel that what we’re seeing, or at least the bulk of what we’re seeing is making a worse industry. 

I don’t think anyone has really given that much of a toss about the fact that ZQ cheated on her boyfriend a huge number of times, other than the boyfriend and the Breitbart writer – though only in his headline IIRC. What caught people’s attention was that it appeared to be sex for favours and whether or not it was there was clear CoI which was not declared. Again, this was just the starting point and continually trying to drag it back to ZQ is an attempt to derail and make it about ‘slut shaming’ and ‘misogyny’ rather than about corruption. Nobody is falling for it any more.

Here’s the perspective from my side of the aisle, though it seems I’m hardly ever believed.

We have a corruption problem in computer games media and it exists at all levels, whether ideological (SJW issues, especially sex-negative radical feminism) or financial (AAA publishers). Gamergate has accomplished a lot of god in relation to these issues in exposing ideologues, causing a couple of resignations of writers who wrote hit pieces with huge CoI issues around them and most fundamentally and importantly facilitating ethical standard enforcement on key news sites (again, shout out to The Escapist).

My chief concern as a game creator, writer, historian and ‘politics buff’  is broader than the corrupt reviews. My concern is censorship and the constriction of free expression. I see the SJW ideological issue across geek media, and I’m going to reiterate these points I’ve made before. It is controlling the narrative and not in a good way, it is leading to harassment of creators, censorship of creators, self-censorship of creators. It is denying people opportunities and it is spreading lies about people. It is predicated upon a false premise that ‘problematic media’ are actually a problem, rather than vicarious – and sometimes uncomfortable – entertainment in a fictive space.

I am a free expression radical, admittedly, I don’t see why anything should be off limits provided nobody real is actually harmed and everything is nice and consensual between real people. As such I oppose the UK’s ‘opt out’ porn filtering and the ‘extreme porn ban’. As such I oppose busybody interference in games, writing, films, TV etc. As such I oppose the SJW agenda of subjecting any and all fictive media to its litmus tests for political orthodoxy.

It is popular to paint anyone who opposes this ideological censorship (though you likely won’t even admit that it IS censorship) as doing so because they’re misogynistic, racist, sexist etc, etc, etc. To paint the SJW as being a person of empathy, understanding and equality who just wants to make the world a better place.

I can’t speak for everyone but I want diversity, variety etc too. I’m a fan of equality, though I may define it differently to you. However, over and above anything else I believe in free expression. Diversity is great, insisting everything MUST be diverse is not, trying to force everything to be diverse is right out. Different female representations? Great! Insisting that they all conform to a sex-negative, no-sexualisation set of requirements? Not so great.

The huge variety of people on #notyourshield helps demonstrate that the SJWs are not really talking for the people that they think they’re talking for. It seems to be a movement rooted in Tumblrist special snowflake syndrome and pseudo-intellectual, academic media analysis with a feminist/Marxist slant. As a person on the left myself I hate to use the term Marxist as it’s a pushbutton word for some people, but this idea of false consciousness (internalised misogyny etc) has been allowing anti-gamergate people to ironically ignore and marginalise the #notyourshield people as not knowing what’s best for them.

That’s the ultimate arrogance of the SJW point of view though, isn’t it? This media is bad for you, I know, because I consumed it and it didn’t have any bad effect on me…

Hmm. Right.

Make more art. Make your own art. Stop shitting on what other people love. That’ll do far more for your cause than what you have been doing.


14 responses to “#Gamergate – Where David Hill Went Wrong

  1. In fairness to dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian extremists who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand, Bioshock’s twist was that the society was brought down by the unions and the union boss was the secret real villain the whole time.

  2. Ironically I found my way here by seeing this on Facebook where Mr. Hill and his friends were insulting you and implying this was a rape friendly article. Yet I’ve come here and read a more open and implied response to this whole business that’s been going on.
    I admit it is hard for me to take a stance on either side of that whole issue as I see so much hate and bullying flying around. Is it odd a lot of Mr. Hill’s arguments are underhanded indults and bullying? I want to be informed on either sides issues as on one hand I see Anita as a huge fraud and liar and the other hand I will never condone hate or violence against another human being.
    I can’t get that kind of discussion though as both sides seem to get bogged down with high school antics.
    So thank you for something that is sincere and open enough that allows civil ideas and discussion to occur and a chance to let us uninformed have a means of discussing these issues.

    • You said you want to know the issues on both sides. The way I see it, the Social Justice Mafia is just deeply, deeply confused. They’re pampered, spoiled, and they think that having an Internet connection means that they know everything. Because of that, they seem to want to tout their worldview as some kind of definitive, blanket moral standard. As anyone with any real wisdom can tell you, there is no such thing, but they’ve been raised in such a way that makes them think they’re special, so now, they’re out there touting their ideals as gospel! But without the humility that comes with religion, they have no boundaries at all. They’re clueless and depraved people who habitually pass off their “knowsy” writing style as actual knowledge, acting confident when they’re really just desperate, wishing they had some kind of moral authority out of GENUINE GOOD WILL to make things better, but lacking the requisite life experience to give their words any weight or significance.

      As for the gamers, I think they’re really just a bunch of misfits and scoundrels trying to lead harmless lives, not hurting anyone, but when they get ganged up on and have words shoved in their mouths, they get really, really upset, and rightfully so! They have more strength of character than they realize, but – and I really hope any gamers reading this right now take this to heart – they’ve allowed themselves to be seduced by their pastime. They’ve bought into geek culture way, way too much, as if that’s a meaningful thing unto itself. Because they’ve bought into this way of thinking, it impedes their ability to stand up and speak for themselves like proper adults. They’re on the right side of the law here, because they know how to respect other peoples’ views/differences and NOT be fascists, but they can’t represent themselves anywhere nearly as well as the Social Justice Mafia, so they’re getting turned into human “shields” because of that!

      Most of all, people on both sides have just spent way too much time online. They need to get out more and have healthier, more balanced lives. That’s the story behind the story here.

      Everyone senses the Internet is damaging to us, but no one seems to think it’s an immediate problem. Well, now we have proof that it is!

      So, that’s the real take-away message here. Curb your time online, if you know what’s good for you!

      Now, to take my own advice…

    • PS. I wrote my reply to vent my frustration, but the last thing I want is to add fuel to the fire. So, please feel free to just delete both this message and my last message, both in response to E_C.

      Thanks. Take care!


  3. I’m fully on GG side but… How can you revolve an article (and images) on Anita selling her victimism for money and views, and then link your fundraiser because this article has views?
    Is there anyone else beside be who has a real job and supports GG because they ACTUALLY care about cleaning up journalism and freeing it from Political Agenda Enforcers?
    This is a social battle, leave your damn wallets out.

    • Because the fundraiser is stalled at present, because these kinds of people have harassed me and made my job difficult and because this blog has gotten a sudden huge amount of exposure and I would like to be able to pay the people involved in the project what they’re worth. That’s a bit different to selling victimisation for money, though the thought is tempting since it seems so successful 😛

      • People have harassed you? Why are you taking the trolls seriously? I mean, clearly they’re just trying to get a rise out of you.

        I mean, assuming that you’re not manufacturing these claims.

      • Oh look. Here’s one of them now. Look, just like I pointed out before, this isn’t an anonymous troll, it’s a person with a face, history (a history of harassment, abuse, abuse of position etc). Handily, they’re making my very point for me by commenting.

        Well done.

    • So harassment is only harassment if it has a name behind it? Death threats aren’t death threats if they’re anonymous?

      • Spurious threat from J Random Spod (and a hundred like ’em) or one chucklehead who actually means it? Which is more credible, which is more meaningful, which is an opportunistic troll doing it for attention and to get a rise and which is an ideologue who actually wants to harm you in some way?

        You’re just proving my point, more, with every comment but that’ll have to do. Thanks for the assistance. Exit’s to your left.

  4. His gf/wife wasn’t helping im the G+ comments, either…. Calling people ‘bro’, adding emphasis and attitude, jangoistically, mocking other posts. A fine example of What Doesn’t Help Anyone(tm). There’s no one listening there. Just speaking and expecting people to comply, or be mocked.

  5. I’m so tired of seeing this “Gaming consumer” versus “games media” thing. It’s ridiculous. It implies that all consumers are on the same page that you are. We are not. And it’s not this strawman bullshit that the game’s press is unethical, which not a single example of has ever been offered as fact. I have followed on both sides. Since the beginning of the whole gamergate and even through its years of revving up. It’s a hate party, and that’s all. I’ve seen it for years, and it’s finally managed to organize itself. Thankfully, for you guys I suppose. Certain minds have lead you into finding a way to express your hateful blather without coming off as completely insane at first glance. But to be very clear. This movement began because you decided to nose your way into a woman’s sex life. You decided that because she slept with a journalist, who you have never been able to show engaged in collusion with her to generate favorable reviews or coverage, that you get to say she can’t. I’ll let you in on a secret people who work in close proximity have a slight risk of becoming romantically entangled. Especially in an industry like electronic entertainment, where every professional seems to know every other professional. If you really expected that journalists for what is essentially a hobby for most of us, wouldn’t have some measure of a corporate tie, you would be dismissing oh… I dunno… all of the history of mainstream journalism in any form. Nearly all journalism outlets have corporate ties in order to stay afloat. They rely on ads and free games and free systems to exist. Simply acknowledging that does not lead to a swift indictment without specific examples. Your movement has been unable to provide even one. They should be readily available, but can you find even one? I haven’t seen it if you can. This is hate mongering idiocy and that is all. I don’t care that you have some token shields saying they aren’t shields. I don’t care if you think this is a scandal. It’s really just a group of entitled brats. That’s all that ever is. When ME3 ending had to be changed because your camp thought that they had creative control over what a developer makes. Not a quality issue, a creative one. Nobody makes a fuss about the ends of movies or books like gamers will about games. The would reasonable only organize in protest if the book itself was unreadable for the first 90%, as compared to online components failing in games that are predominately made of online components. You get made because gaming journalism doesn’t agree with you and has to except revenue support where necessary? Alright make your own journalism outlets and see if you can generate a counter culture to that which exists and make it somehow well known and respected without any of that corporate backing. Go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you guys. You guys do seem to think you’re the majority even though the big sites aren’t going under or crumpling. Most importantly, you seem to think you are entitled to the personal lives of people in the industry. You seriously take everything as a personal offense in a rather mundane hobby. Grow the fuck up and get adjusted to living like the rest of us do where when we have a disagreement we just acknowledge that we disagree and move on. If you don’t like reviews don’t read them. If you don’t like outlets, don’t visit. If you don’t like developers, don’t play their game. But please quit making people’s lives miserable. I don’t care if you don’t think anonymous threats are serious because for many people they are. They aren’t excusable as internet riff raff making empty threats. They are threats. They are harassment. And if you want to align yourself with the camp that espouses those views, that’s fine, but you don’t get to be upset when we see you as a cretin for making a consious decision to be disgusting.

    • You being ‘tired’ doesn’t make an issue inconsequential or unimportant.

      Consumers may not be on the same page, but consumer protection is necessary to protect even consumers who act against their own best interests. Regulations on medicine, for example. When it comes to games there are different concerns, but concerns nonetheless.

      You’re right, not one example of a lack of ethics in the gamer press has been shown, but many. Many more if you go back to issues like Doritos Pope etc. With reference to the current scandals we have collusion, agenda pushing, undeclared conflicts of interest, attack pieces, one-sided reporting and many other issues all of which are easily available to find with even a minimum of research.

      This movement began when a very hurt man tried to salve that hurt by exposing his former girlfriend’s shenanigans, yes, but it rapidly moved beyond that. Nobody really cares about Literally Who’s involvement other than Literally Who. The corruption that became evident throught that and the reactions of the games media against their own audience was the spark that lead to gamergate which is a genuine, grassroots consumer movement and protest. Attempting to deflect by making it about Literally Who’s sex life is just that, a deflecting tactic that has already been tried and failed.

      Yes, one would expect people who claim to be journalists, especially those who should be championing the consumer, will avoid conflicts and interest and ‘fight for the users’. You’re just trying to engage in apologia for a corrupt status quo here. Nobody is falling for that either.

      I agree, it is entitled brats. The ‘Hipsters with a media studies degree’ that Based Mom referred to. They feel entitled to march in anywhere and to try and force fundamental change on that place’s internal culture because they don’t like it, using a manufactured and unscientific means of trying to turn a matter of personal taste into a grand social ill. This is why they seem to want to avoid peer review (DiGRA) or any genuinely academic or scientific process. It’s a classic moral panic situation.

      ME3’s pretty irrelevant here, but most seem to think it was improved and that the initial effort was a fairly heavy fail. If people are that engaged in your story and product you’ve created emotion and feeling in them. Which can be a good thing. As a creator myself it’s part of what you aim for.

      People are setting out to make their own outlets or to channel traffic to the sites that aren’t corporate shills or SJW extremists. Change in some sites has been wrought, most notably The Escapist. So the movement has already accomplished a great deal of good. Traffic and ad revenue to the offending sites appears to have dropped precipitously (though quite how much is debatable). Not bad for a movement being misrepresented and demonised in most outlets.

      Here’s the reverse question though. Why don’t those who think everything is so awful go off and make their own games? Why are they corrupting games media? Why do they feel they can only advance by tearing down what others love? Why can’t they, in my words: “Fuck off and make their own shit”?

      The hypocrisy in your message is staggering. People have discovered their press, the one supposed to be looking out for them, is lying to them and trying to manipulate them, has even declared them ‘dead’. They have been abused by their own consumer press for years now and because they finally have the temerity to answer back as a mass movement that’s hate or making people miserable? Glass houses and stones.

      No, anonymous threats are not serious. Some people TREAT them seriously, but that doesn’t make them actually serious. Objective Vs subjective. It is objectively true that so very few anonymous threats on the internet are followed up on that it’s not worth taking them seriously. Some people subjectively take them seriously, because of prior history, phobias or because they’re trying to make a political point. That doesn’t mean the threats are actually, objectively, serious. Not to mention, many promiment GG people have also had threats, doxxing, been fired etc. So again, glass houses and stones.

      So to recap:
      * Nobody gives a shit about Literally Who, stop derailing.
      * Why are you taking trolls seriously? Stop derailing.
      * This whole screed is, ironically, a tone argument.
      * Yes, it really is about games journo corruption and abuse of their userbase, and SJW agenda pushing.

  6. I’m a female gamer, and I honestly couldn’t care less. This whole thing is getting confusing. No, games aren’t (mostly) misogynistic. Sure, some games have a bit of ‘ehh’ stuff here and there if you know what I mean, but very few video games are like that. The community, however, I can’t say the same about. Lots of nice people, but twice as many trolls, racists, etc. . It’s just that simple. We can’t change the way these people think. We can’t make them do anything, no matter how much we may want them to. Anita Sarkeesian is going a bit far, but she has the right motives. Though, again, we can’t do much here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s