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

Censorship Paranoia

The Australian Target and Kmart created chaos in the world of “vidya.” Both stores—owned by the Wesfarmers Group—recently removed Grand Theft Auto Five from their shelves due to a customer petition. Since then my twitter feed flooded with accusations of censorship. While others claim it is not. This situation saddens me and mirrors my frustration with progressivism; however, people are conflating two separate issues.

Let’s begin with definitions. According the Merriam-Webster dictionary a censor is “a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc. and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.” Censorship (the same dictionary) is “the system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc.” or “the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively.” No dictionary is the absolute arbiter of meaning, but that’s where my analysis begins. Notice that neither definition demands a government institution be involved in the censoring. Personally I believe censorship can occur outside government institutions, but in practice that rarely happens. Almost every instance—both historical and current—of censorship has come from a government or a governing institution. Now to the actual controversy.

I’ll admit the reason behind the decision is weak, but I understand why some people object to the game’s content. Take-Two Interactive Software claims the game “explores” mature concepts, yet I don’t buy that. Others claim the GTA franchise is a satire of American culture. Certain aspects of the game achieve that, like the radio shows, but the games as a whole do not. Even if GTA was meant as a satire, it’s interactive nature eliminates authorial intent. GTA 5 is a guilty pleasure game. Players are encouraged to do immoral activities because the characters are bad people. Does this have any real life impact? Not for adults. I’ve enjoyed all these games since GTA 3, but would I defend their merits beyond game mechanics and open world sandbox? No.

Wesfarmers’ decision to stop selling GTA 5 is not censorship. One of two criteria must be fulfilled. Either it becomes illegal to own the video game in question or it can’t be sold legally. Any retailer has the right to decide what they sell. While inconvenient, Australians can still purchase GTA 5 from other retailers. No censorship has occurred and no one’s rights are being infringed upon. I do understand peoples’ concerns especially circles within #Gamergate. It’s improbable that two retail chains have enough influence to encourage all stores in Australia to follow their example. Enough cultural resistance still exists to combat moral busy bodies so games with mature themes will remain.

This is another instance of video games being singled out. There are movies and books that have an equal, if not greater, amount of violence; yet they remain on Target’s shelves. Interaction alone hasn’t been proven to increase peoples’ violent tendencies or be the genesis of them. If Wesfarmers were fair, all material displaying violence against women would be banned. It is also their right to not be fair. If you don’t like it, take your business else where. It is foolishness to labeling this situation as censorship. Don’t make GTA 5 a martyr until an actual ban occurs. Thanks for reading. 

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Warcraft of Warcraft Through Rose Tinted Glasses

Talking about World of Warcraft anywhere is like a sheep gleefully trotting into a den of wolves. However, it’s age and the release of Warlords of Draenor inspired some introspection. The Warcraft franchise has always held a special place in my heart. Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness was the first RTS I’ve ever played. Josh, Jake and I sat down in front of Josh’s computer and fought over how our army should develop. Since then, every Warcraft game has been in my house at one point or another. Were there better RTS in the following years? Definitely. Both Starcraft (1998) and Age of Empires II (1999) are superior when comparing game mechanics, unit diversity and possible winning strategies. However, Warcraft’s appeal to me never solely manifested in the games specifically.

With Lord of the Rings and surrounding works, Tolkien created the modern fantasy genre and embodies what people now call “high fantasy.” His world is full of lore that goes back to the creation of Middle Earth. Tolkien’s lore is my favorite aspect of Lord of Rings. I believe Warcraft’s lore was conceived in a similar tradition. Few games have the depth of the Warcraft franchise. Elder Scroll games might be a fair contender. Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal expanded existing lore and Warcraft III brought a new level awesome. The RTS games were fun, providing entertainment for years, but the lore made the franchise exceptional.

My experience with World of Warcraft is strange. When it was published in 2004, my high school mind exploded with joyful vibrations. The lore nerd inside me went crazy. A Warcraft game where you played a single person who could explore, level up, get sweet gear and be apart of newer sagas. Prior to WoW, MMOs were an unexplored genre for me, Diablo II being the only exception. Vanilla gave me two years of awesome gaming experience. Guilds formed real communities of people. It blew away the perception that video games weren’t a social activity. I played on Kirin Tor and met this awesome guild called Ancient Guard. While I don’t keep in contact with those folks anymore, they made those years enjoyable. Thank you all so much AG. Raiding was super fun, despite five to nine hours of commitment per raid (yay for forty man raids!). Shoot people met and got married on WoW which still weirds me out. MMOs were forever changed as WoW became the new standard.

Burning Crusade came out in 2007 and the magic happened once more. The shattered remains of Draenor, now called Outland, could be explored. A combination of Warcraft III and Warcraft II feels flowed from me like dam waters flooding Isengard. Forty man raids were eliminated (thank God). Level 70 dungeons were really hard and challenging to tank. Blood elves and Draenei were introduced as playable races. BC raiding content remains a mystery to me since causal raiding didn’t exist yet. Dual spec was introduced. Kael’thas’ tale wrapped up and Kil’jaden was destroyed. These are pretty significant events in WoW lore that players could participate in. Out of the existing expansions, Burning Crusade is still the best.

My reaction to Wrath of the Lich King (2008) was less exuberant. There were reasons to be excited: A higher level cap. Death Knights were introduced and over-powered. This expansion ends Ner’Zhul’s awe-inspiring story. New pvp battle grounds are made and a random battle system was implemented. The zombie infestation world event that occurred before Wrath’s release was super awesome. Northrend and it’s many zone and dungeons were fun to explore. Yet, four years of WoW had taken it’s toll. College was looming over the horizon and my interest was waning. Leveling became a chore versus a pleasure activity. So I froze (no pun intended >.>) my account and walked away.

Life without WoW was awesome in its own right. My biggest complaint has always been the time commitment WoW requires. I can play Diablo III for an hour and feel accomplished. An hour on WoW is spent walking or flying. Playstation became my primary source for video games. I met more people, traveled and developed my passion for writing. NMSU taught me valuable lessons that might help me one day when I grow up. That’s why video games are cool because one doesn’t need them. Like all other pleasure activities, they can be dismissed and forgotten for any length of time. After three years of sobriety, like a diabetic walking into a Krispy Kreme, I was suckered in once more.

Cataclysm (2010) completely passed under my radar, despite Death Wing being my favorite character in Warcraft lore. According to articles I’ve read and friends, Blizzard hashed up the Aspect of Death. At First, dungeons were super hard and right before Mist’s release they were easy. While some excellent features, like raid finder and two new races, were implemented; apparently they didn’t stem the waves of awful. Another feature I enjoyed was the redesign of classic zones, probably the best Cataclysm had to offer. Mists of Pandaria’s release in 2012 actually angered me. Long sobriety caused a shift in my opinion of WoW. I thought Blizzard should move forward and develop a better MMO. However, a good friend suggested that I take up the mantle once more since Mists was a great expansion. To my surprise, he was right.

Pandaria wasn’t filled with lore that put nostalgia goggles over my eyes. While interesting, it didn’t engage me. Thankfully, Mists’ new features picked up the slack. Pokemon—I mean the pet battle system is a fun distraction. Upgrades brought an entirely new dynamic to gearing. The Timeless Isle further closed the gap in gearing between heroic dungeons and LFR. Scenarios provided an alternative to dungeons and allowed players to participate in certain world events. The Pandarian continent was worth exploring with its abundance of rare mobs. My cynicism was blown away by this expansion. Timing favored me as I returned only two months before Siege of Orgrimmar’s release. Both SoO and Throne of Thunder were excellent raids. Yet, a crappy guild and other circumstances caused to me leave once more as 2014 dawned.

Similar to my prior three years, I thought my WoW experience was over. Then I saw Nerdlords of Draenor on youtube and the magic came back. While in a separate time line, Warlords of Draenor awakens the Warcraft II feels again. However, they emulated J.J. Abrams’ reinvention of Star Trek. Alternate time lines or worlds allow writers to reappropriate existing lore. I am excited to see how characters’ roles are reversed or changed entirely. Garrisons are a gimmick, but it adds another layer to game play. WoW’s continued dominance in the MMO market speaks to its quality. Blizzard has tried and succeeded at keeping this old dog competitive with its younger rivals. Its too early tell whether Warlords will be another Cataclysm or continue the new standard Mists established. Either way, if you’re thinking about returning to WoW, there’s no better time than right now.

Thanks reading and now another humorous comic:

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Why Art Doesn't Matter

Since video games remain in my conscious, let more vidya content continue like the Rolling Stone’s corpse of a music career. Two youtubers, Jennie Bharaj and Westerly, both provided informed arguments an age old debate in video games. Should video games be considered art? Personally, I’ve always considered the subject to be an exercise in futility, aligning myself with Mr. Ebert. I acknowledge the benefit of video games being considered art: immunity from censorship. Developers can rest easy knowing this legal battle is over and I’m overjoyed that some government institutions aren’t useless. However, my apathy for this debate derives from my frustration with art’s terminology and cultural connotation.

Merriam-Weber’s definition of art shares affinity with urban dictionary, some consensus without real verification. No method exists determine when something is or isn’t art because even art experts’ opinions can be radically different. Specificity only excludes objects that others might consider art, compounding this problem and spawning more inadequate definitions. Even with consensus, as a term “art” has come to define nothing. Here are some examples I’ve heard: Art induces an emotional experience/catharsis. Art has no other utility than to exist. Art is expression or application of human creativity in a visual medium. Yet, I can counter each definition. Part of the Bible cause me emotional turmoil, but Scripture isn’t art. The second is too debatable and restricting, utility can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Under the third, a box of cheerios can be considered art.

For at least six hundred years people in the west have conflated art with quality. Despite the term’s completely arbitrary nature, an object becomes more valuable when qualified as art versus something that isn’t. That’s a pretentious double standard. Qualifying the value of anything should be divorced from determining whether something is or isn’t art. They are not related. Criteria is a tool to evaluate quality. Sometimes art is a criteria, but it shouldn’t be. If two paintings—both considered art—are being compared, one cannot say, “this one is better because it is art and the other is not.” In this fictional comparison, art cannot be a qualifier for value. This illustrates the uselessness of art as a term. Go to the Tate in London or any modern art gallery and drink in the pile of garbage that passes as “art”.

My solution to this problem is eliminate the word, but that’s an unrealistic expectation, akin to believing that Valve will make Half-Life Three. An alternative method lies in simplicity and relaying on authorial intent. If a person intends their creative work to be art then it is. Boom and done. Will people like this solution? No. One problem with my solution is the complexity of video games as a medium. While books, movies and video games are all shared mediums, authorial intent is more evident in books and movies than when compared to video games. Interaction creates a distinct separation of experience between creator and audience. A gamer developer’s intent has almost no influence on how game players experience the finished product. Once again I side with Ebert, why does it matter if video games are considered art? Legally speaking, I think all creative endeavors should be protected, not just artistic ones. Therefore, we should be judging a game based on its merit, not whether it fits into a meaningless definition. Then we all can argue about something else instead. Thanks for reading.

I  don't own this comic, but y'all should check it out :D

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

Monsters vs Crusaders and Trolls take the Harvest

These last few weeks have been really exciting in a frustrating way. Seeing folks fight back against misinformation and marginalization is refreshing. A fierce, persistent exhaustion has loomed over me during this month because resolution seems farther than the horizon. Almost everyday a new development occurs in GG’s short and polarizing history. During August and September, this conflict remained in the confines of gaming culture. Stories of Anita and Zoe’s victim-hood were starting to circulate non-gaming publications, but big media (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Fox, etc) hadn't latched onto their stories yet. Then Brianna Wu became the third high profile victim of death threats and the flood gates burst. The war on #GamerGate expanded beyond the land of pixels and honey.

Before I dive in, a definition and applause for fair coverage of GG. Since anti-GG folks don’t congregate under one movement, I’ll refer to them as the Opposition or anti-GG. My arguments will be based on generalizations while acknowledging that exceptions exist and nothing can be stated in absolute terms.

Now to give credit where it is due. Huffington Post Live host Ricky Camilleri had an interview about #GamerGate. Then at the request of two female GG supporters and one neutral voice, Ricky had a second interview. Both sides were heard fairly which was awesome since almost all other media coverage of GG has been negative. Disclaimer: These opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of #GamerGate as a consumer revolt.

While fiction is ultimately meaningless, it can be a powerful tool (look at war propaganda during both world wars). When I first stumbled upon #GamerGate, I foolishly assumed rational discussion had commenced. After all, video games are an extremely inclusive activity and game websites should respect their audiences. However, none of that happened. Anti-GG opponents have heaped the same criticism on the movement: you’re a misogynistic group who strive to drive women out of the gaming industry.

Opposition break down

From observation, I have concluded that most Opposition members believe in various forms of third wave feminism. My arguments have been based off this assumption. Some might label themselves as “Social Justice Warriors” or an alternative name could be “tumblr feminism.” I don’t frequent these circles enough to know anything beyond that folks on the web use these labels. I’m not saying every person that opposes #GamerGate are feminists, but they seem to be the majority. Certainly they are sympathetic with progressive ideas. Despite not collecting under one movement, the Opposition do have leaders of sorts. Game journalists and their older siblings in larger media represent narrative architects. They are the Opposition’s ideologues. Leigh Alexander and others fill this role quite well. I imagine they encompass a small portion of anti-GGers. Everyone else in the Opposition digests the narrative. Either these people agree with the ideology or are too lethargic to verify what they read. Is not verifying bad? Always, misinformation is foundation of ignorance.

Dehumanization

During World War II, propaganda portrayed German soldiers as monsters or beasts to convince both soldiers and civilians that killing them was an act of justice. Those German soldiers didn’t have families waiting for them at home or were simply following orders just like American soldiers. No, they were Nazis who lived for no other reason than to destroy the free world. Was it true? No, excluding Nazi leadership. Propaganda kept the war effort at home alive, but it wasn’t right.

Terms like misogyny or sexist have been weaponized. Once a person or group is labeled in this manner, their opinions no longer matter. Even if their arguments are logical and backed with evidence, people will dismiss it because of the negative perception that surrounds that group. The slander doesn’t end with misogyny either. GG has been compared to ISIS and the KKK. Those statements are beyond absurd. A consumer movement which has done no physical harm to anyone (I’ll address the harassment stuff later) is compared to actual hate groups. I’m genuinely astounded at the gall of some anti-GG folks.

Conflation of #GamerGate and established problems on the Internet

Death threats, doxxing, hacking and harassment are well documented and established practice on the Internet. The anonymous nature of being online often brings out the worst in people. That’s not a statement of endorsement, just telling an unfortunate truth of the digital age. While there is a distinction between harassment and threating someone with death or rape, the two are closely related. I’ve stated before that Zoe’s, Anita’s and Brianna’s stories are tragic. No one should be subject to death threats. My frustration stems from their acceptance and continual perpetuation of the Opposition’s narrative.

Some context: a youtuber by the name of HannibaltheVictor13 made a rebuttal video after a recent conversation with prominent GG member Jemma Morgan. Like many others, he buys into the narrative and claims it’s extremely evident that #GamerGate’s origin derives from sexism. Certain screen shots by Zoe Quinn seem damning enough to convince the Opposition that this consumer revolt was manufactured to oppress women. Here’s another about #NotYourShield for kicks and giggles. A Gawker article uses this “evidence” to demonstrate #GamerGate’s monstrous origins.

Combine this “evidence” with three (probably soon to be four) accounts from victims of Internet harassment and anti-GG has an ironclad case right? Well, not really. Anonymity makes investigating/discovering one’s identity almost impossible, unless you’re a famous person or Internet personality. Then an investigative process becomes less challenging. A third option manifests through action of a law enforcement agency. Since all users on 4chan, 8chan, reddit and other forums boards are anonymous—their only identifier being a random sequence of numbers and letters—it’s impossible to know who any of those folks are. Most boards can be posted on without being a member of a particular site. 4chan does retain IP information, but only law enforcement could demand it. Therefore, how can Zoe, Anita, Brianna or anyone else possibly know—beyond reasonable doubt—that all harassment they received is from members of #GamerGate?

The short answer: they don’t. Zoe’s investigation and “evidence” generated myths of misogyny about #GamerGate’s origins. Despite Adam Baldwin creating GG’s hashtag, Quinn insists that her harassers form the core of this consumer revolt. Yet, I remained unconvinced, must be my inherit sexism coming out. Specific screen shots taken out of context can’t provide a full story. I’m not saying Zoe is lair, but her word isn’t enough. Here’s an Escapist article regarding Zoe’s accusations versus the statements from 4chan users. This “evidence” is weak at best, yet the Opposition takes it as truth. She only established that a group of people sought to harass her. Opposition folks please stop conflating actions of any individual with the stated goals of #GamerGate.

Infallible Victims

The Opposition loves Anita because death and rape threats have been heaped upon her. Now they have a poster child for victims of awful Internet sexism. Brianna brought this conflict to game journalists’ older siblings: main-stream media. I take issue with her interviews because she frames #GamerGate as an active war to drive all women out of the gaming industry. Her variation of the Opposition’s narrative is much more aggressive than her predecessors. Whether Brianna actually believes her experience legitimizes negative views of GG is irrelevant because sincere belief or sinister perpetuation have identical effect. She’s had at least two interviews thus far on MSNBC, and PBS. There were painful to watch; a cloud of misinformation surrounded her. A youtuber—Sargon of Akkad—made a rebuttal video in which he provides reasonable criticism. I’ll talk about her interview with David Pakman.

Mr. Pakman showed himself as individual who is willing to ask the hard questions. In all of her prior interviews, Brianna’s claims were never questioned or was asked for clarification. For an opinion journalist, David knows how to keep his bias in check. His question were fair and reasonable, yet Brianna has the gall to claim he was running a “hit piece” on her. This interview confirmed some of my observations about Brianna:

1. She uses her victim-hood to shield herself from legitimate criticism.
2. Her accusations are said without any evidence or opportunity for others to verify. Two death threats have been made public with no connection to #Gamergate. Yet, Brianna claims a majority of threats came from GG supporters and she has proof, but refuses to show it.
3. If she truly fears for her life, I don’t think she’d be doing all of these interviews. Going to public studios leaves a plethora of opportunities of a potential killer to harm you.
4. She only seemed interested in talking about sexism in the industry which is not at all related to the consumers that make up GG.
5. Suddenly she speaks for all women in the gaming industry? I guess she must have a lot of free time to get know all the other women.
6. She literally states— with a straight face—that thousands of real people in #NotYourShield don’t exist and are actually sock puppet accounts created by white men. I just can’t. The stupidity of that statement boggles my mind.

Our culture, at least in the United States, wants to avoid victim-blaming to such an extent that we’ve traveled to other extreme: victim testimony cannot be criticized or questioned. People assume that victims would never lie about their trauma. Why does Brianna antagonize an already angry group of people? It doesn’t make sense, what does she gain? It seems that Brianna has declared war on #GamerGate, not the other way around. I don’t believe any of these women are professional victims, but I know that phenomenon does occur. Thunderf00t released a video about Anita’s recent canceling of her USU talk. While I disagree with his conclusion about Anita, he does give an example an actual professional victim. In our current culture climate is being a victim potentially beneficial? You can bet your buttons on it. Anita has gained opportunities from her victim-hood. I’m not condemning her for being pragmatic—that’s good—just making an observation. Victims are people; therefore, their testimonies are fallible. When making accusations against a person or group, the burden of evidence is on the accuser.

Journalism:

This criticism can be applied to all sectors of journalism and not all people in gaming media are unethical. Journalism has taken on a multitude of meanings over the last century. For a base definition, I’ll reference the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Definition 2b presents how journalism used to be, “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.” 2c defines what journalism has become, “writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.” Almost all people who claim to be journalists today, use definition 2c. When Walter Cronkite was still alive, journalists told people facts regardless of personal bias. His famous ending phrase was true because people of his generation understood that heavy bias distorts facts. News doesn’t present truth when told through the lens of any ideology. People ask, “where’s your proof of corrupt journalistic practices in gaming media?” My answer: look no further than the opinions writers who label themselves as “journalists” and don’t curb their bias at all. Journalistic ethics exist to keep journalists from reporting on false information or misrepresenting events. Do game journalists do this? Nope. They sacrifice factual presentation at the altar of special interest and ideological manipulation.

Here’s a brief list of articles with a negative bias towards #GamerGate: New York Times, New Statesman, The Mirror, The Verge, Jezebel, Deadspin, International Business Times, Telegraph, LA Times, BBC, Newsweek, Gawker, Kotaku, Washington Post, Vice, the Guardian, Time and there’s more. Now a list of positive bias: Breitbart, Breitbart again, Slate, Gamer Headlines, Reason, Reason again, Gamesnosh and maybe a few others. Follow the link trail on the negative pieces. All source articles come from two types of sources: liberal progressive publications or sites like Kotaku or polygon where the conflict began. When verifying an article’s claim look for source material/articles with a plethora of different biases. A mix of conservative, neutral and liberal biased publications that all mention an event generally means it’s true or if there is a way to access direct source material, look at that instead. Most of the negative articles about #GamerGate derive back to the same sources which means a narrative is being perpetuated. For example, a recent article from the Guardian talks about neo-nazi being welcomed by #GamerGate. One source article is from Gawker— a media company with a vested interest in seeing this consumer revolt crushed into dust since they own Kotaku—and it’s author is Sam Biddle. A biased article that sources another with an even greater bias shouldn’t be taken as established fact. What separates a blogger from a real journalist? As long as opinion writers masquerade as journalists, there is no difference. No human can truly be objective, but it’s easy lay personal bias aside or refrain from writing due to personal connections. If game opinion writers became real journalists, then #GamerGate would cease. That’s how to defeat #GamerGate once and for all.

Death threats on both sides indicate that all people can be assholes.

The Media focuses on just Zoe, Anita and Brianna because these woman fit their narrative. They ignore harassments and death threats suffered by pro-GG supporters—like KingofPol, Milo Yiannopoulos, Boogie2988—and other folks within the Opposition. That frustrates me out of the room because clearly trolls are winning this fight. Some trolls might choose sides, but their effect remains the same. Through storify, Todd in the Shadows (a reviewer I continue to support despite his hurtful statements about GG supporters) brought up a valid argument against #GamerGate. My problem with his argument is two fold: 1) #GamerGate isn't necessary for Internet trolls to harass and threaten people. 2) Todd is classifying GG supporters as idiots or assholes. Troll organizations like the GNAA could cause trouble for both sides. #GamerGate’s existence does allow for more trolling and death threats because conflict attracts assholes. Trolls didn't find a home in GG, rather they knew GG would be blamed for their work. Both gaming journalism and larger publications have turned #GamerGate into a scapegoat for Internet harassment. Let my words be clear: everyone can and has been an asshole at some point on the Internet. Folks on both sides need to get over that. People suffer threats all the time and ignore them instead of making a fuss. If you do feel threatened, call the appropriate authorities.



A Personal Plea

#GamerGate has agreeable goals; consumers have the right to ask for improvement from folks who make video game products or report on it. But, none of this needed happen. Game journalists should have said, “Know what? Our audience is right. We fucked up and let’s turn our gaze inward to fix it.” Then GG wouldn’t have been necessary, but this consumer revolt must have an end. Boogie released an excellent video about that. I hope #GamerGate ends the fight game journalists started. Funny enough, GG’s goals don’t entice me to support them, rather the Opposition practically forces my hand. The venom of anti-GG’s attacks are genuinely astounding and the media dog pile sickens me.

To those who perpetuate this destructive narrative about #GamerGate: screw all of you. It’s people like you that make this world harder to live in. To Opposition folks that believe that narrative: Please look deeper than the surface. Don’t assume that journalists, whether you like them or not, are telling you the truth. Because chances are they’re lying or spinning the story for an ulterior motive. The majority’s voice isn’t always right. I apply this opinion to every journalist that I come across, including Mr. Yiannopoulos. Don’t let someone else’s ideology control your life. My reasons for support:

I’ve seen folks who support GG and most of them are reasonable and seeking to end destructive journalistic practices in gaming media. Their goals benefit everyone, except the journalists who defend their unethical practices. People of every ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender and political views have congregated around #GamerGate and #NotYourShield. Their claims are legitimate and they have real impact. Yes, there some current and former jerks in GG, but they don’t represent everyone involved. This consumer revolt is a hashtag, thus anyone can use it. There are no leaders, administration or members, only a common goal. Some folks have formed a harassment patrol to report abusive behavior in GG ranks, but they can’t stop people from misusing the hashtag. Please don’t conflate the actions of certain individuals with #GamerGate’s goals. We’re all people and individuals before the labels start sticking.

Being compared to the KKK, ISIS and being called terrorists and misogynists genuinely hurts. I haven’t personally suffered any abuse, but prominent anti-GG members have insulted me by association. Progressives and modern feminists say we shouldn’t be sexist, prejudice, or narrow-minded. I agree, but their actions are contrary to their words. The constant stream of hate and prejudice from the Opposition is absurd. I support #GamerGate because its opponents are cruel and vicious. I seek constructive criticism, a resolution and an end to #GamerGate. Do anti-GG folks feel the same way? Feminists and everyone else deserve to have a voice in gaming culture.

Here’s some videos and GG related stuff people might like to see.

Pakman’s interview with Milo Yiannopoulos
 
Pakman’s interview with Jennie Bharaj (a pro-GG feminist)

Anonymous’ denouement of OpGamerGate and support of #GamerGate

TotalBiscuit’s interview of Stephen Totilo

A sincere plea to the ExtraCredit (awesome web show) team about GG

Chez Apocalypse episode (season 4 ep 7—link doesn't seem to work) about GG and base assumptions, even though the host doesn't acknowledge his own base assumptions.

Paula Wright, another pro-GG feminist, writes about #GamerGate
A PBS video on fallacies and the host gives his honest opinion on GG

Another pro-GG feminists writes about her frustrations with anti-GG folks

Another awesome video from the Factual Feminist

Sargon of Akkad’s interview with Matt from the Fine Young Capitalists.

And now a funny comic

Thanks for reading :)

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

My thoughts on #GamerGate

I’ve wanted to keep controversy away from this blog. Controversial comments can be very dangerous on the Internet. Criticizing fiction is my favorite hobby (hopefully profession someday). My other blog was for the heavy stuff, but this particular topic involves fiction and social identity politics. #GamerGate, the surrounding controversy and it’s impact on the video-gaming community are today’s subject. I’m a new coming to the entire situation and misinformation saturation from both sides have made the last two days rather unpleasant. However, since I commented on GamerGate in ignorance causing my credibility (in my own eyes) to become questionable, my only remedy manifests in this post.

Video games were once my favorite pleasure activity. Writing has taken the helm now, but games haven’t been forgotten which makes learning about events in the last year extricating. While politics isn’t a personally enjoyable subject, insanity fuels me to stay knowledgeable about current events, political ideologies, progressive movements and the consequences of government’s actions. My opinions regarding these topics are almost endless.

Fiction has been my refuge from the real world ever since I read Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone in elementary school. I love being transported to other worlds, reading the exploits and adventures of people or creatures. There’s no greater feeling of joy than getting sucked into a novel for the first time. It’s awe inspiring experience. Books, film, theater and animation are all awesome mediums, but video games offer an interaction that no other medium can. Players can take an active part in stories, sometimes building entire worlds in the case of Minecraft. Creativity manifested in new way and everyone who played celebrated this phenomenon. In the early 2000s big AAA publishers started to loose their iron grip on games studios. Indie studios were popping up everywhere, making games of every kind. Gaming culture took some really positive turns in the last ten years.

Of course, it wasn’t perfect. Some gamers were trying to raise awareness about video games being an art form and a legitimate story-telling medium. Others were fed up with the creative stagnation of AAA titles. Shit-talking always polluted online chat-rooms and gaming community members were the ones telling shit-talkers to stop, not people on the outside. Critics blasted games for being awful, demanding better games from publishers and developers, but there was always common ground. The divisions weren’t deep enough to destroy the culture video games had created. We were people who played and loved video games. And then the Internet happened.Chronology according to Erik Kain
Chronology according to Know Your Memes
Zoe Quinn and the Quinnspiracy:

Why does Zoe Quinn’s story matter? How is it relevant to corruption in gaming journalism? Honestly, I’m not sure we should care. Basically, a female indie developer released a game called Depression Quest in 2013. Apparently the game wasn’t very good, but received good press from sites like Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun. Around the same time one of her ex-boyfriends posted rather incriminating evidence against Zoe involving sex for journalistic favors with various people in the industry. These events created the Quinnspiracy. Her conflict with The Fine Young Capitalists, Wizardchan and alleged intimate relationships with people caused severe backlash from folks on the Internet.

Normally such a story wouldn’t cause many waves, most people wouldn’t care. However, some folks decided that defending Zoe by censoring forum threads, making DMCA complaints and labeling her accusers as angry white misogynists was good idea. It’s like putting out a fire with gasoline. Here a few examples: (note these are all recent articles) the Guardian, the Daily Dot, Ars-techina, the Daily Beast, Gamasutra. These piss me off, but they’re not the real problem. The Quinnspiracy—a conspiracy I don’t fully believe in—brought the feminism crusade to our land of pixels and honey. Anita Sarkeesian and The Feminist Frequency

A list of Sarkeesian’s notoriety: started a youtube channel and website (title listed above), guest lectures at certain universities, convinced roughly seven thousand people to give her money which totaled around one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, released a series of videos called “Troupes vs Women”, received a massive amount of misogynistic attacks/death threats on the Internet and participated in a TEDx talk. Anita and Zoe’s experiences are the fuel for #GamerGate’s opposition. Some might call them SJWs (Social Justice Warriors), however I will stay away from this terminology. Author’s note: Anita has far more credible evidence than Zoe regarding attacks, hacks, death threats, etc.

Youtube personalities like The Internet Aristocrat, Mundane Matt and others have focused their criticisms outside of her video series. Some folks claim she used clips from other “Let’s play” videos and didn’t give any credit the owners of those clips. Further speculation suggests she didn’t even play the games at all. The number of videos Anita has released versus how much money her kick starter accumulated does raise some suspicion. Others state that both Anita and Zoe are playing the “professional victim,” essentially inflating the damage to manipulate people’s emotions. I’m not sure I believe that either. While these speculations combined with Anita’s action makes interesting conversation, I’m not sure it’s a productive direction.Troupes vs Women

Many folks have criticized Anita’s video series over the last couple years, including feminists. I’ll give a light criticism of her most recent videos: Women as Background Decoration (part 1 and part 2). As a critic, Anita makes some astute observations about how female npcs are treated and portrayed. Her arguments are constructed well and laid out in a logical fashion. Her criticism of developers for relying on violence against the poor—specifically women—and disenfranchised is legitimate. Video game writers should forge newer, more intricate ways of creating a wicked or a-moral world. Games like GTA don’t really offer a female character in the main cast (characters the player can control). Some of her criticisms could open discussion for better games. Now on to my critique.

1. The pool of games she references represent a small fraction of existing video games. With the advent of mobile games, Wii games and Steam, AAA titles encompass a small fraction of available games. Show me sexist events or portrayals in one hundred games—crossing multiple genres—instead of a dozen in the same or similar genres and then you will have my attention.

2. Titles like GTA 5, Sleeping Dogs, Dishonored, The Bioshock franchise, The God War Franchise and Red Dead Redemption either have a player controlling a villain or someone who has potential to be one depending on the player’s choices in game. Are there sexist events, people and places in GTA 5? Yeppers. All three playable characters are sociopathic, a-moral or deranged. There’s violence against both genders in that game, sexualized or otherwise. In Dishonored all the citizens of Dunwall suffer a variety of afflictions from a corrupt government. Gender becomes irrelevant in the city wide oppression. Anita ignores the nature of the games she is analyzing, taking events and characters out of context.

3. Intellectual pretentiousness. I don’t know if this was intentional on her part, but it’s there. Notice how all the videos are labeled as “educational.” Nevermind that her criticisms are ultimately her own opinion. No, no, no Anita is here to enlighten the ignorant masses. Man that infuriates me. Does she assume her audience consists of nothing but men with no concept of sexism or what it looks like? Because that’s how she delivers her conclusions. One can’t expect to convince anyone of anything if that person is talking down to an audience.

4. Her conclusions about specific events in her example games are based on sexist assumptions. Some statistics state that at least 40% of the gaming community in the United States are women. Industry leaders and game developers are probably aware of this. We don’t live in 1985, it’s 2014. Video games have become a major part of most peoples’ lives. Anita basically states that all games which portray violence against women or women as sexually objectified beings were created by sexist game developers. Worse than that, people who buy these games join these “sexist” developers in an incestuous relationship whose only purpose revolves around strengthening The Patriarchy and prejudice against women. Granted that’s my phrasing, but her intention runs along similar lines. Santa Monica Studios isn’t sexist for making a series about a broken man consumed with vengeance. Kratos is a bastard who will make anyone—regardless of gender—suffer to achieve his goals.

5. I realize this video series wants to highlight sexism against women, but multiple times Anita says that men aren’t sexualized in video games. My response: male power fantasies. Almost all existing game protagonists are caricatures of traditional masculine qualities. They have sculpted bodies, stoic or emotionless, sexually dominating and the ability to solve every conflict with violence. As a masculine being, I don’t resonate with this portrayal of masculinity. It’s sexist against men who aren’t like that. Women are not the only sexualized gender in video games.

6. Fiction doesn’t matter. Rational human beings—barring mental illness or trauma—can distinguish between reality and any kind of fiction. Ideologies or political/social messages can be perpetuated through fiction, but never has a person completely changed their world view after playing a video game or any other medium. Gender violence perpetuates itself. Children who are abused will be more likely to commit abuse in their adults lives, not from playing sand-box video games. One of my biggest problems with most feminist theory is it’s habit of extrapolating sexism in fiction and then applying as a main cause for continuing sexist behavior in reality. Fiction and reality are related, but not the same. An author’s person should not be judged solely on the content of their fiction. Yet, Anita’s arguments imply that gamers are brainwashed into misogyny by sexism in the games they play. Essentially she is blaming content creators for a problem that supersedes gaming culture in its entirety.

7. Video games are an interactive media, thus it has a more damaging influence compared to other visual mediums. Video game censorship activities have used this argument for years. They pull statistics and research that “definitively” show video games making teens more prone to violence. Anita re-appropriates this belief, replacing generic violence with sexism and gender violence. I acknowledge that video games affect people to a greater extent than a movie or television show, but none of these mediums change entice people to engage in hurtful or destructive activities. #GamerGate and Internet Harassment

For the record, I think the #GamerGate moment is a positive force interested in the betterment of gaming culture. I am not actively involved, but I support the ideas behind it (because my endorsement is suuuuuuppppppeeeerrr important). Recognizing journalistic corruption is important and I’m glad people within the gaming community are taking stand. Asking for genuine and fair coverage of games and other aspects of gaming culture is not wrong. It’s something all people who play video games can unite on.

Media coverage of #GamerGate has not been kind. There are some bloggers/journalists who defend the movement, but the opposition is over-whelming. It may seem obvious, but why does the moment continue to receive bad press? “Oh they’re just SJWs,” that’s a dishonest rebuttal. Internet harassment is not a new phenomenon, it’s been going on for years. #GamerGate’s opposition—journalism or otherwise—are essentially feminists or people who sympathize with feminist theory. Attacks on Zoe and Anita have fueled their notions that the gaming community is filled misogynists who have nothing better to do, but tear down the lives of women. There’s a fatal flaw in that assumption: when did the gaming community become synonymous all communities on the world wide web? Were some of those death and rape threats from people who associated with #GamerGate? Probably. But this movement has been vocal about their intentions and what the “core” represents. Journalists who still label #GamerGate as nothing but sexists people are misinforming those outside the conflict. In this regard, I agree journalistic collusion does exist, but the Quinnspiracy still seems like an exaggeration. To folks who like to anonymously threaten people with rape and/or death:

These people are giant gaping assholes whose genitalia should be mauled off by a bear. Sadly the Internet is full of them. Negative aspects of our nature tend to emerge when no one knows our identity. Without personal identity consequences become far less tangible. Whether any threat is real or false, no one should ever threaten someone with rape or death. Ever. Male or female, no one deserves that kind of treatment. Origins of the #GamerGate conflict can be traced directly back these asshats. Journalism and Ethics

One massive reason keeps me from actively participating in #GamerGate: I don’t care about journalism ethics. Zoe Quinn’s actions seem to have woken many folks up to collusion within gaming “journalism.” First, journalism is a questionable term because what separates a journalist from a blogger? Besides an ethical standard that journalists are supposed to follow, no difference is found. Especially since journalism has become so bias that one can ever know if an event, place or person is portrayed truthfully. Second, why was anyone surprised? Was the Internet ever this magical “Fifth Estate?” Somehow technological advancement eradicated the corruption that plagued the “Fourth Estate,” allowing no bias to exist for the next generation? A free flow of information doesn’t mean journalistic collusion is dead, just harder to pull off; yet, it still happens. I’m skeptical of reviews and articles in Game Informer—my favorite source of information for video games—because AAA publishers basically try to bribe game “journalists” with gifts and full-paid trips to test their games. It makes sense that indie developers want to get chummy with journalists. Just take everything with a grain of salt.

This doesn’t mean people shouldn’t try to change it. #GamerGate and it’s youtubers are making legitimate claims. Folks playing video games should be able to trust gaming websites and their writers. The Escapist has already altered their ethics policy. Even Kotaku has made policy changes to avoid conflict of interest situations in the future. Gamers’ voices are being heard and that’s awesome. Feminism vs Creative Freedom

I am not a feminist and I support gender equality. To some that’s an oxymoron, but it’s definitely possible. Before I really dig into this subject, a list of observations about feminism and other progressive movements. Disclaimer: I understand that feminism is an old movement that has undergone at least three transformations or “waves.” It has many variations and those members fight for differing specific goals, yet these variations still adhere to basic feminist notions.

1. Most progressive movements view the world from a particular moral lens. This lens is usually built from an ideology which forms a moral absolute. Taking a moral absolutist stance on anything immediately diminishes the chance for compromise or dialogue. Look at how entrenched people on both sides are over abortion in the United States.

2. A person or group of people form an ideology. They are the first generation thus no distinction is made between ideology and ideologues. However, the following generation inherits the ideology. No longer are the ideologues and ideology the same entity. The members may have personal variations on the inherited ideology, but they ultimately perpetuate the original ideology. I’m not saying ideologies can’t change; Feminism is a great example ideological change. However, Feminism’s core values remains the same.

3. Progressive movements use “war time equivalents” (i.e War on Poverty, War on AIDS, etc). There are no bystanders or neutral agents. Either one supports the movement or that person is treated as an enemy or “part of the problem.” This too limits compromise or dialogue because the opposition is seen as inferior or regressive.

4. These movements often endorse conformity, rejecting intellectual rights of an individual for betterment of the movement or cause. Not all individual rights are rejected just those that oppose the movement’s ideology or break an established criteria. Often a progressive movement does not even tolerate the existence of opposing ideas and actively seeks their elimination. For a long time feminism completely shut men out of any conversations involving sexism, gender identity, pregnancy, abortion, and contraceptives. Only men that submitted to the ideology could voice an opinion. A non-feminist man? Out of the question. Emma Watson’s #HeForShe might be the first time a proclaimed feminist actually invited men to the conversation.

5. Progressive movements encourage policing of content and ideas in all aspects of society. Therefore most progressive ideologies draw their roots from Utopian ideologues (i.e. Plato or Hobbes).

6. Social injustice—real or perceived—cause people to create progressive movements. Good intentions guide members within a movement, meaning the first generation can succeed in improving a society or culture. Unfortunately, good intentions have unforeseen consequences created by members of a later generation. Oppression of Creativity

How does this relate to creative freedom? Of the two women mentioned in this post, Anita scares me more than Zoe ever could. It’s not because Anita’s criticisms are ironclad and unstoppable. Her potential influence on big publishers isn’t the genesis of my fear either. Every variation of feminism shares at least one common aspect: ideological policing. If this was an introverted effort, I’d no problem because it could be classified as reformation. Unfortunately, Anita’s brand of feminism is extroverted effort. They seek to police content within future video games. But isn’t that censorship? States like California have been trying to regulate video game publishing for almost two decades. Feminists like Anita seek more sinister goals. Policing content isn’t quite the same as censorship and it has a deeper impact. Censorship is visible and can be combated legally. Ideology can only be stopped with other ideologies. If the majority of game developers—current and upcoming—start to endorse and agree with policing content because it might be offensive or not politically correct then creativity will die. Women like Leigh Alexander, Anita and others only want “approved” creativity, ideas that fit their specific world views. In an industry where developer creativity is already quashed by marking statistics and greedy publishers, this feminist invasion compounds an existing problem.

I don’t give two shits about journalism ethics. I’m happy that people are fighting corruption, but that’s chump change compared to the threat that Anita and her ilk hold. I don’t want developers to waste away under ideological oppression. That’s why I support #GamerGate. As a content creator and aspiring fiction author, people should be allowed to create fiction of their choosing, no matter what that content might include. The Future

After a month of watching events unfold, I have a few thoughts on what #GamerGate and the gaming community should do next (I promise this post is almost finished). In order to stop feminism from gaining a dominant position in gaming culture, we need to engage them on our own terms. This goes beyond #GamerGate and journalism ethics. There probably are some aspects of video games which legitimately promotes sexism against women. Rational human beings should be able to converse about this topic. I know there are feminists or just women who play video games and don’t agree with ideological policing. Let’s find these folks and get some constructive conversation going. It’s the only way to keep the flow of ideas and creative freedom alive.

Now some criticism specific to #GamerGate. Folks need to stop putting up unfair rebuttals like “SJW’s are useless and stupid.” Progressive ideology and the people that follow it frustrate me all the time, but name calling isn’t going to solve anything. An eye for an eye attitude just ignites the opposition towards irrationality. Second, there will always be people who believe #GamerGate is a misogynistic movement filled with assholes. Don’t try to silence every opponent. Third, divert some focus away from journalism ethics and corruption. Feminist opponents need to be addressed in a reasonable manner by #GamerGate “leaders.” If anyone read this far, thanks for hearing my thoughts on this entire situation. Despite my cynicism, I hope people within gaming culture will fight to preserve what video games are all about: having fun.


Extra Reading:List of colluding gaming journalists
Internet Aristocrat’s summary of events part 1 

Find me on Facebook or Twitter