Toxic Gaming Ends with Us

Since I’m on a “kindness in video games” train this month, let’s talk about toxic gaming. I think we’ve all experienced harassment at one time or another: shit talking, slandering, name calling, racist slurs, encouraging suicide, and girls being harassed for their gender. Reinforcing the notion that people can be assholes behind a mask of anonymity. Usually players can avoid this behavior by steering clear of competitive games like Call of Duty, Halo or any number of MOBAs. Even in cooperative games like World of Warcraft—specifically in end game raiding—folks can get mean. I’d specifically like to address the League of Legends community.

League is super fun game that popularized the multilayer online battle arena genre. The champion pool is practically endless and mastering the various roles offers an unique experience. Games are short enough to allow effective time management. I’m not a competitive person, but I liked spending time on League. Maybe the key to it is playing with friends versus random strangers, but doesn’t this sentiment reflect poorly on the community? Unfortunately, not every player has the luxury of four other people who consistently play. So where does that leave the rest of us? Really Screwed.

Positive experience for any online game involves a positive community. This is especially true of games with a steep learning curve like League. Even in non-ranked matches, If a player does poorly then all their teammates pile verbal degradation on them. A common insult falls along these lines, “go uninstall the game and kill yourself.” I’ve been the recipient of this insult because I’m always not that good. It’s easy to understand why people get angry on League. All five players must have a minimum grasp of mechanics, champions and specific roles in order to win. One member doing badly is all the other team needs to snowball a match. However, that’s no excuse to tell some to go kill themselves. That victim might actually end his or her life. I believe the harasser would share some blame in that death. To be fair, I’ve never heard of such an event occurring, but the possibility exists. Online culture seems to have forgotten that bullying and harassment can drive people to dangerous actions. People are afraid to play League because of its massively toxic atmosphere. Video games should radiate inclusiveness, not hate fueled by nonsense.

God knows that Riot Games have tried to discourage bad behavior. A concise complaint system allows players to report teammates or enemies for a variety for offenses: verbal abuse, afk, intentionally feeding/trolling, quitting a match early and many more. Enough reports may lead to an account ban. Players can also give their comrades variations of little positive comments, similar to a “like” on facebook. Rewards are given to players who aren’t reported and accumulate “likes”. Yet, “The Tribunal” (Riot’s name) doesn't seem effective at cleaning up toxic players, probably due to Riot’s philosophy about the community defining itself. Thus, it’s our responsibility as players to better League of Legends. Let’s encourage players who are doing badly and offer advice if necessary. Speak out in game against bullying or harassment. These actions will realistically have little impact, but if a majority of us start acting in this manner, then players exhibiting malicious behavior won’t have a home in the League community. I realized this is a naive notion; however, it’s possible to foster change. League should be defined by its merits as a game, not by some jerks who play it.

Thanks for reading:

Bow before the Adorableness!

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Kindness Is the Foundation of Real Progress

It’s been seven months and infamous #GamerGate has stopped being a movement or consumer revolt, as some have coined it, and transformed into another Internet subculture. I’ve written two long posts essentially supporting the hashtag; however, the honeymoon is over and retrospection has set in. I stand by my prior analysis of the media and game journalists mislabeling #GamerGate with misogyny, anti-feminism and sexism. Unfortunately, those claims are not entirely untrue.

To be honest, my support aligned less with the movement’s goals and more with my dislike of its opposition. Here’s the breakdown of prior my motivations:


1) Mislabeling or blaming a group of people because they disagree with a particular worldview is wrong. Folks within the game journalist community did this apparently expecting no backlash.

2) Activist journalism creates problems because peddling ideology takes a priority over presenting factual information. Journalists in any industry can’t be trusted to honestly report information that conflicts with their predisposed worldviews, yet they expect that trust from their readers/viewers.

3) I’ve seen supposedly “progressive” groups in the past use their cultural influence to shame and bully people who disagree with them into silence which frustrates me. #GamerGate seemed like another victim of this tactic.


Therefore, my perspective has always been from the outside looking in. My twitter feed is still full of people from both sides attacking each other. Then it hit me: does #GamerGate mean anything positive now? I don’t mean to belittle the meaningful work of its members, but was this worth the high price?

I’ll address the anti-feminist claims first. Many folks in #GamerGate identify with feminism, but with its second iteration. Some might label this “equity feminism” which stands in opposition to third wave or “gender feminism.” Christina Sommers is without a doubt the most famous pro-GG feminist. From my observation, a majority of anti-GGers seem to identify as Social Justice Warriors who ideologically fall under third wave feminism. Current theory consists mostly of gender elimination which second wavers disagree with; therefore by current definitions, #GamerGate is an anti-feminist movement. Personally, I don’t see a problem with that. However, it did attract people who were more interested in shitting on SJWs than raising ethical concerns about gaming journalism.

Even in the early days, people on both sides were harassing each other on twitter and I assume the same was happening on forum boards like 8chan, reddit or NeoGAF. It was a miniature extension of the larger culture war. Pro-GG folks stuck to the ethics in journalism, but anti-SJW folks under GG’s banner were too vocal and said a plethora of stupid stuff that anti-GG fed on. Even when GGers tried to police their own, it ended up backfiring. People within GG were turning on each other. Then harassment escalated to doxxing. It didn’t matter who got doxxed or which side they gave allegiance to, #GamerGate’s credibility no longer existed. So much time and resources were spent trying to convince people that #Gamergate wasn’t a movement motivated by hate to no avail.

The hashtag’s nature was its own downfall. Historically, social and political movements ensure longevity by establishing an ideology, leadership roles and membership parameters. Do these elements remain static and unchanging? Probably not, but they are necessary. A leaderless group with no real ability to police how their hashtag is used or by whom only works with momentum. It’s game over when stagnation hits and that’s exactly what happened. #GamerGate fought an uphill PR battle which they lost. I don't think they’ll recover from it. Now both sides just use the hashtag to make fun of each other. 

What are GG’s accomplishments? Some websites changed their ethic policies, awesome. They did raise an impressive amount of money for various charities. Gawker Media lost seven million dollars when pro-GGers wrote to its various sponsors. Another example of how powerful a group of people with a united cause can be, but the impact is insignificant. Gawker has gotten more popular through this controversy and regained lost sponsors. The careers of Anita and Brianna have benefited massively from these last six months. Intel put three hundred million dollars into diversity programs a PR make-up for pulling sponsorship last fall. Game journalism practices stay largely unaffected; the Game Journo Pros still exist. #GamerGate hasn’t died, but I think it has lost meaning. After becoming an Internet sub-culture, it’s just both sides saying, “oh we don’t participate in X, but those other people do and here’s proof *random link*” People are just shitting on each other through harassment. Over and over and over again.

In my experience, real impact occurs by changing peoples' hearts and not arguing them into the ground. That means engaging people who disagree in civil conversation and ignoring harassment when it happens, maybe even befriending them. If video game culture is as diverse and welcoming as many in GG have claimed, then we must create a space for people like Anita and others who hold strong convictions about social issues. Let them criticize and make games that explore the issues they talk about. Just as I can stand for gender equality without being a feminist, I support ethical journalism without being apart of GG. #Gamergate was the conduit allowing gamers to stand against being marginalized and mislabeled, but that time is over. The greater gaming community will need to address these issues, not just two small factions (pro-GG and anti-GG). We all have voices which don’t need to be chained to groups or associations. The best way to answer hate is with kindness. That’s idealistic, but it greatly affects people when successful. If bettering our community is the goal, then we must consider the possibility that perpetuating #GamerGate won’t achieve those goals. This isn’t a “#GamerGate is over” post; rather we should let it end. Responsibility doesn’t lie with one side to stop attacking, but with both sides to cease. This entrenched miniature culture war won’t solve anything.

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

When Delusion Overcomes Reality

It’s no mystery that progressivism frustrates the poop right out of me. I literally must sit on a toilet for at least three hours after reading anything related to this taboo. It drives me up the wall, like a spider-monkey, every time this plague on America rears it’s ugly head. But in all seriousness, modern “progressive” attitudes often cause more harm than good.

Today, I’ll be espousing another politically incorrect and certainly controversial opinion about gender politics. Judith Butler is probably one the most influential feminists and culture critics in the last fifty years, maybe even in the 20th century. Her theories on disguising between sex and gender have changed how western culture converses about these issues. Whether Butler is correct about sex and gender being completely separate remains to be seen. However, the theory itself has manifested some unfortunate consequences. Non-heterosexual gender identities arose as western culture became more welcoming of them; not that they didn’t exist before, but simply outside of cultural awareness. Gender theorists have caused portions of feminism to shift away from women’s rights and towards sexual liberation by eliminating gender roles. Some might call this variation “gender-feminism.” Others might classify third wave feminists with that label, but I’m not a scholar on the development of feminism so my brief analysis probably has errors.

People often make a distinction between transgender and transsexual. The former is term used to identify people who don’t fit into a specific gender. The latter is specific to people who reject their anatomical sex. Two medical dictionaries (American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) define this as transsexualism. However, medical dictionaries may not be enough to convince people. Body Integrity Identity Disorder is a psychological disorder where patients believe their lives would be better as an amputee. Xenomelia is a similar disorder where patients reject anatomical parts of their bodies (i.e. an arm or leg). Notice how all three disorders involve patients believing something about their own bodies that conflicts with reality. Yet, our culture (outside of the medical field) doesn’t acknowledge transsexualism as a mental illness. Butler’s theories, along with other factors, start causing trouble because transsexual people are still lumped into a transgender identity.

Leelah Alcorn's tragic suicide inspired me to write this post. He’s—I will refer to his actually sex, risking insensitivity—a victim, but not from his family. Granted, they probably could have handled the situation better. Not sending your child to conversion therapy is great start. As a Christan, I think that “therapy” is remarkably stupid. The Alcorns have suffered massive criticism from the media when they don’t deserve all of it. Leelah wanted to start hormone treatments. Apparently, he thought that was his only avenue.

Folks like Leelah, young and maybe not properly informed, make this assumption: gender reassignment will improve my health, physically and mentally. I’m sure some people who consider this option know the risks before hand, but western culture’s increasing acceptance of it (government medical plans now offer coverage) probably encourages less research. Regardless of one’s moral opinion, gender reassignment surgery is body mutilation. The faux genitalia are created using natural genitalia which sometimes eliminates a patient’s ability to orgasm. Hormone treatments before surgery are unpleasant to say the least. It’s expensive and the whole process is long. The waiting and strife would be worth it, if gender reassignment did anything beyond relieving some gender dysphoria. A thirty year study from Sweden concludes that patients generally have a higher mortality rate after surgery than before (though there are always exceptions). Unfortunately, there is isn’t an abundance of long-term studies exploring the effects of gender reassignment on patients. For many people the surgery fails to make significant impact on their mental stability.

People suffering from transsexualism want to change their sex and gender. Due to many performative aspects of gender, one can simply reside in an identity regardless of their genitals. Gender reassignment changes one’s physical appearance, but changing someone’s sex is impossible. A man who wears a new gender cosmetically is still, in all technicality, a man. A reassigned individual knows this and I believe that’s why surgery doesn’t stem the depression and suicidal tendencies afflicting transsexual people. John Hopkins University pioneered gender reassignment, but stopped because they came to the same conclusion as the Swedish. If western culture is as progressive and open minded as we claim, then we need to acknowledge all possibilities. Instead of selling gender reassignment, we should be researching alternative psychiatric treatments that don’t involve ruining someone’s sex organs.

Then I come back to Leelah. How different would his life have been if he’d gone to a real doctor with regular therapy sessions and family with a little more understanding. He might have chose life instead of death. Leelah’s a victim, not of culture that oppresses transgender people, but one obsessed with political correctness and trying to make sexual liberation the “civil rights” movement of the twenty first century. A culture that endorses people irrationally rejecting their own flesh because it fits the narrative of a genderless world. A culture that sells gender reassignment like a magic pill. I’ve heard Leelah’s death has inspired the advocacy of many LGBT groups fighting for transgender rights. Maybe we should see this tragedy as a reason to better understand transsexualism and how to treat it. Simply demanding more access to surgery and hormone treatments is like giving a band-aid to man with a gaping chest wound.

This isn’t about sexual rights, transphobia (a silly fear) or forcing people into heterosexual gender identities. I realize my stance can be offensive. No one likes to hear, “Oh by the way, we think you have a mental illness.” To any trans people who read this: please understand, I say this because you all deserve better than a surgery which fuels delusion. It’s cruel and inhumane to ignore this mental illness and those who suffer under its affliction. I’d rather offend someone than lie to them. That’s what western culture is doing: lying to sick people because apparently we’re too cowardly to face reality.

Here are some related articles:

Milo Yiannopoulos

The Wall Street Journal

The Guardian

Find me on Facebook or Twitter