All of #GamerGate, summarized


You want this sprawling mess in a tidy package? You can’t go wrong reading this lengthy breakdown by Kyle Wagner, who is probably now on a hate list somewhere.

One thing I particularly appreciated was the analysis of the attempt to coopt the young gaming jerk group by conservative culture warriors and anti-feminists, in particular the ridiculous Christina Hoff Sommers. Here’s the bit where he tears apart her video.

The numbers Sommers cites are well known, but instructive. Among incoming college freshmen, 65 percent of women say that they never play video games, compared with just 19 percent of men. Among hardcore gamers, just one in seven is a woman. In a breathtaking non-sequitur, Sommers argues from these numbers that including fewer sexy women in games and fewer instances of violence and indifference toward women will not make men less sexist, in the same way that violence in games has not been shown to correlate with violent crime. We can pass over the misstep of comparing an active and aberrant behavior (committing a violent crime) with a passive attitude (viewing women as sex objects instead of fleshed-out human beings); that’s wrongheaded, but it’s not the main problem here. Neither is the hand-waving at "cherry picking" sexist games without offering even ballpark statistics, an argument that can be boiled down to #notallvideogames.

The real problem is her claim that because girls don’t play games anyway, and boys do, it’s only natural that game makers would tend to include sexy women in their products. This launches fundamental economic precepts so directly into the sun that it cannot be accidental. You’ve got a growing base of women playing games and evidence that college women aren’t playing games at the same rate as men; that’s evidence of a massive untapped body of game players who should be catered to directly, not that gaming should run far and fast back the way it came and hope the girls never find it. This is the shallow reasoning that allows arguments like, "Duh, video games are a business" to fester in comment sections. Of course they’re a business—and this is bad business by any measure.

Sommers’s concern trolling ought to be beside the point—this is just not a credible argument in any way, flatly, obviously, right-there-on-the-surface. But it’s taken seriously—proudly, even—because the credibility of an argument or its source isn’t the point, in the way it’s not the point of a Marine Todd chain letter. The only point of propaganda is that someone with a veneer of credibility is saying it, and that the people who want to agree are able to do so, thus ratifying and reinforcing the ideals of the group.

That’s the thing — you can’t tout Glorious Capitalism and then ignore the Giant Invisible Hand pointing insistently at the untapped market of women who play games, but there was Sommers, doing exactly that for the AEI. But never mind the inconsistency, she helped grab a collection of oblivious potential middle class voters and convince them that conservative values will help them…the same thing they did to win over the religious right, getting them to actively assist in undermining their own class.

Comments

  1. remyporter says

    Imagine you have a product that has fully penetrated a market demographic to the point where they’re basically a captive audience. Now, you want to grow your business. Do you saturate the already saturated market demographic, or do you retool your product line to appeal to a broader range of demographics?

    In the games business, there’s a huge underexploited* demographic. Common sense dictates that publishers should go after that market segment, and go after it hard. Of course, that would involve actually understanding the market segment, and not making broad assumptions based on the one time you talked to a girl for five minutes in an elevator before she maced you and ran screaming for reasons you’re too dense to comprehend.

    * Well, they’re exploited IN the games, but their wallets are left untouched

  2. says

    Elsewhere in the article:

    an ancillary hashtag, #notyourshield, is hatched by minorities, women, and LGBTQ gamers who agree with Gamergate and disagree with writers who they feel are misrepresenting them

    Not likely.

  3. says

    In a way, it’s very evolutionary (not a perfect analogy, of course, but follow along). There’s an unoccupied niche, so whoever first expands into it will have a great chance for huge growth with little competition. If done properly, such a company could establish itself firmly by the time anyone else gets in on it and secure a long-term market share.

    Meanwhile, the established companies that control the old market will be so well adapted to that niche that they have to overcome a lot of inertia to move into the new ground. As a result, the new market will likely be dominated by smaller companies, which otherwise face stiff competition in the old market. They have less motivation to stay in the old market and more flexibility to make the shift to the new.

    Whoever first jumps on this boat and does it right will end up as the next Blizzard.

  4. drst says

    You know that gamergate was never, ever about anything but misogyny because their pretend reason, “ethics in gaming journalism” is bullshit. We know it’s bullshit because if that had ever been what it was about, THEY WOULD BE GOING AFTER THE JOURNALISTS, NOT THE DEVELOPERS.

    If you see biased reporting in a newspaper, you question the reporter on their ethics. You don’t question the person they interviewed or wrote about. The ethical issue is with the reporter. As far as I can tell, the ‘gater’s have targeted one journalist, and that was the guy who supposedly slept with Zoe Quinn but then never wrote about her game.

  5. Doubting Thomas says

    “Duh, video games are a business” As are drug cartels and sex slavery among others.

  6. doublereed says

    The numbers Sommers cites are well known, but instructive. Among incoming college freshmen, 65 percent of women say that they never play video games, compared with just 19 percent of men.

    My experience is that many women begin playing games in college because they’re hanging around with more guys who play games. Citing incoming freshman and extending that to college students doesn’t make any sense to me.

    The Wii, back in 2006, demonstrated that there are untapped markets out there. That’s not really up for debate anymore. They completely crushed their competition with marketing targeting families, kids, and the elderly, as well as fun, family-friendly games.

  7. laurentweppe says

    We know it’s bullshit because if that had ever been what it was about

    We know it’s bullshit because they never went after the collusion between AAA companies and the gaming press: they’re not only misogynists: they’re also the lackeys of the decadent de facto aristocracy lording over the industry.

  8. Kevin Kehres says

    @6 DRST.

    Not exactly. What happened was the journalist — unhappy that Quin broke up with him — sicced the gamer community on her.

    Far from being a “target”, he was on the other end of the rifle, using gamers as ammunition against her. And it worked.

  9. VP says

    #7 – OptimalCynic

    Calling the “Invisible Hand” a “technical term” is hilarious at best.

    I do like, however, that you provide a link that completely undermines your argument. As the Forbes article mentions, the original usage of the phrase Invisible Hand by Adam Smith has nothing to do with how it is interpreted by economists or lay people today. In addition, the article mentions at least 3 different interpretations/definitions that are used today.

    Just proving that there is no technical definition for it, and furthermore, it’s original definition has little to do with its current colloquial usage.

    PZ uses it in its colloquial sense, and is absolutely correct to do so. Your chiding him for using it the way economists and lay people use it today and not using it the way it was intended in a throwaway line in a centuries old book is rather silly.

  10. OptimalCynic says

    #13 – VP

    Isn’t that the “evolution is just a theory” argument that creationists use? Economists don’t use “invisible hand” to describe market forces.

  11. says

    We know it’s bullshit because they never went after the collusion between AAA companies and the gaming press: they’re not only misogynists: they’re also the lackeys of the decadent de facto aristocracy lording over the industry.

    It reminds me of the utter ineffectiveness of MRA types in actually helping with men’s issues and concerns. But when many of the people flying under the #GamerGate banner are the same people, perhaps that is not surprising. There are plenty of people out there that have been trying to investigate and bring people’s attention to ethical issues surrounding the behaviour of game companies, journalists, and YouTubers, but instead of supporting them many GGers have felt the need to heap abuse on them.

  12. says

    Unfortunately any plank extended in an attempt to reach that boat is immediately set on fire.

    Not sure that’s really relevant, except as a reinforcement of my point: Established companies have to worry about the dudebro reaction and so will be slow to occupy the available market space. However, smaller companies, who not already heavily invested in the male market can afford to just not give a shit and pander exclusively to young women. There’s enough of them out there, with enough disposable income, that a company doesn’t actually need to compete for the already over-saturated male demographic.

    It’s just a matter of time before somebody realizes that making games for women is going to make them millionaires. From there on, it’s just dominoes falling down.

  13. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    @12 I didn’t think the ex-boyfriend who whined about her was the journalist. I thought the ex-boyfriend was throwing a hissy fit because she may, after dumping his worthless ass, possibly have slept with someone else who might have been a journalist who didn’t actually review her game.

  14. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    @16 Especially if they make games that are *good* games and not games about makeup or dating or stereotypically feminine games, but merely good games that don’t include negative sexist tropes, and then not only will women be buying them, but chances are a fair number of male gamers who just like good games.

  15. daniellavine says

    Optimal Cynic@14:

    PZ is using it the exact same way Adam Smith did: as a metaphor for price signaling in a market.

  16. daniellavine says

    Here’s the first of Adam Smith’s invisible hand quotes:

    The rich…are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society…

  17. LicoriceAllsort says

    The entire article is excellent. Moar snippets:

    A more important resemblance to the Tea Party, though, is in the way in which it’s focused the anger of people who realize the world is changing, and not necessarily to their benefit.

    And this part near the end is a nice summary:

    There are notes here, too, from a hymn book that predates the internet: self-pity, self-martyrdom, an overwhelming sense of your own blamelessness, the certainty that someone else’s victimhood is nothing more than a profitable pose. All culture wars strike these same chords, because all culture wars are at bottom about the same thing: the desperate efforts of the privileged, in an ever-pluralizing America, to cling by their nails to the perquisites of what they’d thought was once their exclusive domain.

    If atheism were to do a movie about Gamergate, the slymepit would play the part of Reddit and Dawkins would be starred as Adam Baldwin. Hoff Sommers would play herself.

  18. says

    LykeX @ 16:
    I was, indeed, trying to reinforce your point while also bringing up a different aspect of the problem.

    Let me see if I can explain where I was coming from with that comment…
    Making a good game and marketing a game are two different things. You can have the most awesomest greatest game evah, but if no one knows about it you got nothing. There is a huge untapped market out there (i.e. your boat) but how do you reach them? The current major marketing angles are dominated by dudebros selling to dudebros and woe to anyone that tries to change that. (i.e. my plank) No only do the developers need to change, but the entire marketing apparatus needs to change too.

    not sure if that clears it up or not. need more coffee.

  19. gmacs says

    Blake Stacy @4

    Here’s what I notice about #notyourshield. I don’t want to tell women and minorities when they are supposed to be offended, or disregard their experiences. But I don’t understand the metaphor of the shield. How are “SJW”s using them as shields?

    What’s even more odd is that pro-GamerGate dudes keep bringing up the hashtag in order to deflect criticism. In essence, they are using #Notyourshield as a metaphorical shield in argument.

    It just boggles my mind, really.

  20. Matrim says

    @ 17, Moggie

    Obviously chick dollars are worth less than dude dollars.

    Well, yeah, chick dollars are only worth $.78 of dude dollars…see, it makes perfect sense.

  21. vaiyt says

    @gmacs
    It’s easier if you understand that #notyourshield is full of sockpuppets impersonating bad stereotypes of minorities. It’s another 4/8chan astroturf.

  22. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    gmacs

    Blake Stacy @4
    Here’s what I notice about #notyourshield. I don’t want to tell women and minorities when they are supposed to be offended, or disregard their experiences. But I don’t understand the metaphor of the shield. How are “SJW”s using them as shields?
    What’s even more odd is that pro-GamerGate dudes keep bringing up the hashtag in order to deflect criticism. In essence, they are using #Notyourshield as a metaphorical shield in argument.
    It just boggles my mind, really.

    Because those assholes are acting as if SJW’s are doing the same thing they do: using minority people as a tool. For them it’s for not being racist, sexist, etc. since their “black/woman friends agree with me” and SJW’s use them to say “I’m not racist because I agree with black people”. To them SJW’s are both white knighting for people who don’t want to be defended and using them as a weapon. Thus, getting minorities on their side is a game to win because without uppity minorities and those filled with white and male shame who side against their own interests the problem will go away. Because being vocal about equality and diversity is the problem.

  23. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    vaiyt

    @gmacs
    It’s easier if you understand that #notyourshield is full of sockpuppets impersonating bad stereotypes of minorities. It’s another 4/8chan astroturf.

    True and this can’t be re-stated enough. But there are minorities who don’t think there’s a problem (my Roomie being one of them) so I was trying to explain the reasoning behind the thought that getting all the minorities to shut up about the problems would make the problems go away.

  24. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    Me #28

    True and this can’t be re-stated enough. But there are minorities who don’t think there’s a problem (my Roomie being one of them) so I was trying to explain the reasoning behind the thought that getting all the minorities to shut up about the problems would make the problems go away.

    Sorry, let me clarify that bit about my Roomie. He’s black and doesn’t have a problem with how most games are white or how little representation there is outside of white men. He understand that other POC want it but doesn’t fight for it and just ignores the racism he faces in online gaming. He definitely has a problem with the threats and #GamerGate as a whole and agrees it’s misogynist.

  25. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    When the Invisible Hand flips you off, you don’t know until it’s too late.

    This has been Deep Thoughts with Unknown Eric.

  26. says

    Speaking as a game developer, I say the same thing that I posted on Ophelia’s FB the other day.

    We devs have a very specific remit: to turn a profit. We do so by making our games as joyful as possible, as accessible as possible, and open to as wide an audience as possible. We do not narrowcast, we do not exclude, we encourage everyone to play and have fun. I’m not allowed to speak on behalf of my employer, but this accurately summarises my mission.

    In my view, anyone who wishes to restrict our audience, to drive custom away, to turn it into a club for the like-minded, can get lost.

  27. says

    Gamergate has upset me so much, but it gives me hope to see so many mainstream news articles which are so on point about it. Like Deadspin, that’s a sports news site.

  28. jodyp says

    #notyourshield is another #endfathersday. At this point, anyone that gets taken in by the scam is a willing dupe.

  29. numerobis says

    leebrimmicombe-woode@31:
    Turning a profit is what the execs care about. The whole team is involved, but generally the devs I know care more about the art and technology for its own sake (granted, as an indy dev I get to be both a exec and a dev).

    When I argue on mercantile grounds that we should make our app more inclusive it’s that I’ve given up on my interlocutor having any moral fiber of his own.

  30. jste says

    The numbers Sommers cites are well known, but instructive. Among incoming college freshmen, 65 percent of women say that they never play video games, compared with just 19 percent of men.

    Stats like these drive me mad. Why cherry-pick such a specific segment of gamers? I mean, I know why, but c’mon… From http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp :

    Today’s Gamers

    31
    The average age of today’s gamer.

    14
    The average number of years gamers have been playing.

    71%
    of gamers are age 18 or older.

    48%
    of gamers are female.

    62%
    of gamers play games with others, either in-person or online.

    53%
    of gamers play games on their smartphones.

    41%
    of gamers play on their wireless device.

  31. vaiyt says

    Why cherry-pick such a specific segment of gamers?

    Because it makes her side look more relevant, of course!

  32. Ichthyic says

    they’re also the lackeys of the decadent de facto aristocracy lording over the industry.

    just like the teapartiers are.

    coincidence?

    doubtful.

  33. gog says

    @Ichthyic #37.

    Preservation of privilege is a huge motivator to fight against anybody that even mentions the existence of the privilege in the first place.

  34. says

    I’m actually kind of optimistic these days about how it’s going with Gamergate. Once mainstream media outlets started talking about it the backlash was swift and vocal. It seems Gamergaters are the only people who can’t see what a vile, dishonest and deluded pile of crap their movement is. I think this may mean that society actually is moving in the right direction despite the best (worst?) efforts of evil people after all.

  35. says

    numerobis @34

    Turning a profit is what the execs care about.

    And oddly enough many devs care about it too. It’s not a zero sum game where we can only care about one thing. I’m rather focussed on keeping my studio alive as well as trying to craft the best game experience I can.

    There’s more. Revenue corresponds to popularity. And who doesn’t want their product to be popular?

  36. =8)-DX says

    We can pass over the misstep of comparing an active and aberrant behavior (committing a violent crime) with a passive attitude (viewing women as sex objects instead of fleshed-out human beings); that’s wrongheaded, but it’s not the main problem here.

    I think the comparison has some merit – just like the existence of violent videogames doesn’t create a highly violent player base*, so sexist games don’t create overtly sexist players. I don’t even think videogames make men consider their women-friends sex objects: it’s much more subtle than that. A person who consciously accepts basic feminist principles of equality and wants to engage in relationships where women are treated as equals, is still influenced by gender bias. If videogames are part of a culture that reinforces gender stereotypes, then the greatest harm it does is by making otherwise good intentioned people unconsciously treat women (and men) through the lense of gender bias. Just take “mansplaining” or talking over women in conversations: it’s something even feminist men have to watch out for and a trap and barrier to communication that even loving and committed partners fall into.

    Perhaps violence in videogames tends to make people treat media coverage of overseas wars and death tolls as “just numbers”. Similarly sexism in videogames may tend to make people treat women’s rights issues as “just hormones” or “bitch be crazy” or “why’s she complaining she so hot?”. Subconscious bias concerning the violence of war doesn’t affect most Westerners, but gender stereotypes shape our everyday lives whether we want it or not.

    *I’ve always played violent games in a “pretend the characters are real people” mode, which is why I always get disapointed at games that only allow violence. Thief was a great game, allowing non-violent takedowns and stealth, I completed the first and second games without a single human kill, while still feeling a bit sad at having to kill some non-human enemies. Occasionally feeling frustration at not being able to play one-track violent videogames the way I want is feels like a fraction of what women and others feel when wanting to play sexist videogames.. as their own gender, without having to dodge gender stereotypes at every turn. Or not being ABLE to play the game without accepting boilerplate gender essentialism (the Multiple Shitty Sexist Choice™ game model).

  37. laurentweppe says

    Preservation of privilege is a huge motivator to fight against anybody that even mentions the existence of the privilege in the first place.

    Even in cases when “privilege” basically means “being a House Servant rather than a serf

  38. says

    Also, if that statistic CHS cherry picked shows anything then it’s that there’s a population of young men who have a serious gaming problem, i.e. spending way too much time playing video games. IIRC the “hardcore gamer” was defined as 20+ hours a week. But we all know that when those 20+m hours a week gamer dudes fail college and get bad grades it’s the educational system being misandrist…

  39. epicurus says

    ” The only point of propaganda is that someone with a veneer of credibility is saying it, and that the people who want to agree are able to do so, thus ratifying and reinforcing the ideals of the group.”

    This x infinity. The GOP has learned this lesson very, very well, and the media plays right in to their hands. I remember watching the movie Network when it was first released. (Yes, I am that old, thank you!) I recall thinking at the time how prophetic it was, and imagine my complete lack of surprise, some years later, that the prophecy had come true. CBS, ABC, NBC, and most certainly, FOX exist as profit centers for their corporate overlords. News is only “news” if it is approved by the “suits.” It is a shame, for sure.

  40. ck says

    PZ wrote:

    One thing I particularly appreciated was the analysis of the attempt to coopt the young gaming jerk group by conservative culture warriors and anti-feminists, in particular the ridiculous Christina Hoff Sommers.

    Well, Amanda Marcotte figured that out weeks ago. It’s only become more obvious since then. I suppose it’s good that a man is pointing this out now, too, but…

  41. neverjaunty says

    Game companies are already targeting games to a wider audience, because they want to make money. Even with AAA titles. Is it universal and commonplace? No, because there’s still a ridiculous level of dudebro-ery in the game making part of the industry. But it’s there, and it’s getting bigger, because the other thing about a big market is consumer choice. It isn’t the case anymore that there are only a handful of games on the market and if one is sexist, too bad because that’s all you get. Now if a game pisses off women, say, or is hugely racist, people will talk about it, and a lot of people will say “hey, I can spend my money elsewhere.” FFS, Saints Row 4, which is hardly a socially redeeming game, is set up so that thTe game is exactly the same depending on whether you play Generic White Dude or a fat African-American lesbian. When a player whined that the latest Dragon Age had a gay romance and ethnic female NPCs, the lead writer for the property publicly told him to fuck off if he didn’t like it.

    And that’s why these fools are so noisy and violent. It’s an extinction burst.

  42. ansatz says

    Ok, got a bit of time, so let’s jump back into the muck and see what’s been happening lately.

    The article itself? Contained absolutely nothing new. The same arguments, the same assertions, the only difference being a modulation in style. It begins reasonable enough, with a somewhat well put together summary of events . . . but data interpretation is where things begin to go terribly wrong.

    The second paragraph in particular is instructive.

    By design, Gamergate is nearly impossible to define. It refers, variously, to a set of incomprehensible Benghazi-type conspiracy theories about game developers and journalists; to a fairly broad group of gamers concerned with corruption in gaming journalism; to a somewhat narrower group of gamers who believe women should be punished for having sex; and, finally, to a small group of gamers conducting organized campaigns of stalking and harassment against women.

    So here the author himself have listed 4 groups within GamerGate that he could think of.

    1. Conspiracy theorists.
    2. Advocate for ethics in gaming journalism.
    3. Opportunistic misogynists.
    4. Organized harassers.

    It’s an adequate paragraph. It captures some of the groups within GamerGate, to the limit of the author’s own preconceptions. Yet, immediately after, the author zeroes in on the narrowest and most extreme subsets, and treat it as representative of GamerGate. Immediately after the enumeration of the four groups, of which 3 and 4 are explicitly stated to be narrow and small, the author then concludes that GamerGate is and should be defined as 3 and 4, by way of assertion that of course it is true.

    Really, though, Gamergate is exactly what it appears to be: a relatively small and very loud group of video game enthusiasts who claim that their goal is to audit ethics in the gaming-industrial complex and who are instead defined by the campaigns of criminal harassment that some of them have carried out against several women.

    This is patently ridiculous, yet is taken as self-evident by many here and many opponents of GamerGate.

    To demonstrate the utter inanity in that argument, let us think of another group with fringe elements that are minor in numbers comparatively yet loud in volume. Given current events, I am of course speaking of the Muslim community.

    How many here thinks Al Qaeda defines the Muslim community? How many here thinks ISIS defines the Muslim community?

    How many people here thinks that the horrendous acts of violence, murder, and rape is what it means to be a Muslim?

    How many people here thinks that all Muslim share the culpability of those acts of utter brutality and devastation? Of the beheadings, of the beatings, of the stoning?

    The answer should be zero. It’s ridiculous to hold the actions of Muslim extremists, of Muslim terrorists, against the general Muslim community. This couldn’t be any more clear.

    And yet, when it comes to GamerGate, suddenly the sheer volume of its extremists means that all members of the group support the message of those few. Suddenly, the sheer vitriol generated by its extremists renders any and all association with the GamerGate identifier as harmful and toxic.

    If you speak out against harassment, but use #GamerGate, this means you support harassment.
    If you speak out against bullying, but use #GamerGate, this means you support bullying.
    If you speak out against threats of violence, threats of death, threats of rape, this means you support threats of violence, threats of death, and threats of rape.
    If you speak out against misogyny and sexism, but use #GamerGate, this means you support misogyny and sexism.

    In essence, any and all actions you do, so as long as you use #GamerGate, is taken as evidence against you, is rationalized somehow someway as proof of your sexism, as proof of your misogyny, as proof that you are an anti-feminist, as proof that you are a bully, as proof that you are deluded, as proof that you are a fool, as proof that you are a liar, as proof that you are only putting on a facade, as a cover as a tool as an excuse as x as y as z —

    As iron-clad irrefutable written in stone proof, of your terrible thoughts of your terrible beliefs of your terrible deeds.

    And this is just ridiculous. What’s so easily seen in the case of the Muslim community should be just as visible in any community, in any group, and yet somehow it is invisible now, as if blinders are raised the minute GamerGate is seen.

    And nowhere is this more evident than within #Notyourshield.

    There have been multiple posts asking for the purpose behind #Notyourshield, multiple posts with the conclusion that #Notyourshield is, unironically, a shield that GamerGate use to guard against criticism, multiple posts that express a disbelief in its authenticity, who doubt the people within the hashtag, who dismisses out of hand the experience of the many many many individuals within the tag, decrying them as merely sockpuppets impersonating bad stereotypes of minorities, who essentially misses the entire damn point of #Notyourshield and unequivocally justifies its existence.

    So, what is #Notyourshield?

    A response against the tirade of gross generalization that gamers are white heterosexual middle class males. As a way of showing that yes, minorities do exists within the gaming community, that yes, minorities do identify themselves as gamers, and that no, they’re not white heterosexual men.

    And what is the response to #Notyourshield? @vaiyt #26 is illustrative.

    The response from the people who should know better, the people who should know damn well better, is one of contempt and disbelief.

    What the heck.

    Imitation of bad stereotypes? Does this look like such an imitation?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7FqXi7SydA

    A quick search of the hashtag itself, just now, gives the faces of #Notyourshield:

    https://twitter.com/GintaxAlviss/status/523308484729663488
    https://twitter.com/georgieonthego/status/522310438629830656

    These are the sockpuppets. These are the people dismissed. These are the people who don’t exist. These are the white males we’ve been looking for.

    And *that*, is why #Notyourshield exists.

  43. thee underground says

    And *that*, is why #Notyourshield exists.

    @47 I’ll extend you the benefit of the doubt that you haven’t seen the reporting on the IRC logs .

    As with the manufactured campaign #EndFathersDay, sockpuppet accounts appear to have figured heavily in getting the #GamerGate and #notyourshield campaigns going. The sockpuppets pushing the hashtags were easy to identify by their low post counts, the fact that they tweeted about little other than #GamerGate and #notyourshield, and reverse image searches of their avatars that showed the photos to belong to people who likely didn’t own the accounts in question.

    If you genuinely care about the purported aims of this movement, I sincerely wonder where you were during the Gerstmann firing, Doritogate, or the Lauren Wainwright dustup.

    Extending the example: Frank is very concerned with corruption on Wall Street. Frank came to this realization by reading Protocols of the Elders of Zion and feels it made some good points except for the anti-semitism. Can you see how this utterly undermines any position Frank may take?

    Odds are that either 1) you’ve been tricked into marching under the banner of monsters or 2) are willingly marching under the banner of monsters and attempting to deflect and derail the discussion. Again, I’m willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is naivety.

  44. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    This is patently ridiculous, yet is taken as self-evident by many here and many opponents of GamerGate.

    This is patently ridiculous, yet is taken as self-evident by many here and many opponents of GamerGate.

    And yet, when it comes to GamerGate, suddenly the sheer volume of its extremists means that all members of the group support the message of those few. Suddenly, the sheer vitriol generated by its extremists renders any and all association with the GamerGate identifier as harmful and toxic.

    A response against the tirade of gross generalization that gamers are white heterosexual middle class males. As a way of showing that yes, minorities do exists within the gaming community, that yes, minorities do identify themselves as gamers, and that no, they’re not white heterosexual men.

    Yet, immediately after, the author zeroes in on the narrowest and most extreme subsets, and treat it as representative of GamerGate. I

    Unevidenced assertions, dismissed without evidence.
    And your EVIDENCED point is????

  45. vaiyt says

    @ansatz
    #GamerGate was FOUNDED by those “fringe elements”. They’re in your movement, leading and dictating the tone. We know because every big “Operation” #gamergate has executed so far consists on either harassing women, or trying to pressure video game publications into silencing people you dislike. We know because every manifesto vomited forth by your mob so far has struck the same chord – SJWs wanna take away my vidya, gamer smash! That’s the only “corruption” you seem to care about because a hack from a looney tunes site of conspiracy theorists managed to convince you that there’s a Vast collusion of feminists aiming to make all games conform to the radical notion that women are people. (LE GASP) The #gamergate notion of ethics in journalism is laughable and unlike anything I’ve seen in communications college.

    This. Shit. Is. All. Documented.

  46. vaiyt says

    We can also see the forefront of the movement is still populated by reactionaries, authoritarians and known anti-feminists; more keep joining and getting their voices echoed by the masses.

  47. vaiyt says

    Same guy gets invited by #gaters to do some research on what the movement is Really About. Here’s what he finds out.

    After my HuffPost Live appearance, I was invited into a Google Hangout about GamerGate by Troy Rubert, aka @GhostLev. I accepted, and when I got in just about everyone who spoke openly talked about how mad they were that progressive politics and feminism were impinging on gaming, which they saw as an area they had enjoyed, free of politics, forever. They were extremely open about this.

    I hope I don’t have to explain why this is bullshit.

  48. Saad says

    vaiyt, #53

    You sure don’t.

    I love the use of the phrase free of politics to disguise sexism and marginalization of women.

    Is that a new tactic? First time I’m seeing it.

  49. ck says

    Saad wrote:

    […] the use of the phrase free of politics […]
    Is that a new tactic? First time I’m seeing it.

    Not exactly. It seems to be a variation of the complaints about politicising a tragedy. The aim of this turn of phrase tends to be identical to the other: “Stop talking about this!”