Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Bomb Threat Targets GamerGate Meetup (Hear From Somebody Who Was There)

Much of the "GamerGate" viciousness can actually be laid at the doors of its opponents

Photo by Cathy Young and Brandon MorsePhoto by Cathy Young and Brandon MorseEver since its birth eight months ago, GamerGate, the online gamers' movement that calls itself a revolt against corrupt journalism and oppressive political correctness, has been assailed as a misogynist mob out to terrorize female videogame developers and feminist critics—a narrative picked up by most of the mainstream media and even dramatized on Law & Order: SVU. The "Gaters," meanwhile, have always claimed that they were being unfairly painted as harassers when they themselves were frequent targets of harassment and threats in the culture war over gaming. And now, GamerGate's first American meetup in Washington, DC this past weekend has ended in a bomb scare—after an attempt to bully the venue into canceling the event. 

As one of the few journalists who gave GamerGate positive coverage last year, I had been invited to attend the Friday night gathering, organized by scholar and dissident feminist Christina Hoff Sommers and Breitbart columnist Milo Yiannopoulos. That afternoon, Sommers emailed me to say that Local 16, the restaurant hosting #GGinDC, was being bombarded—as it were—with angry messages via phone, email, and Twitter.

At the center of this kerfuffle was Arthur Chu, the controversial former Jeopardy! champion, writer, and self-styled GamerGate nemesis. (When not warring against GamerGate, Chu can be found smearing Charlie Hebdo as a racist rag, inveighing against the debunking of fake statistics that help righteous causes, or musing that as a feminism-loving dude, he sometimes wants to "join all men arm-in-arm & then run off a cliff and drag the whole gender into the sea.") Shortly after noon on Friday, Chu tweeted at Local 16 about an "Internet hate speech movement" meeting on its premises; then, he sent an email, later publicized by Yiannopoulos, haranguing the owners about hosting a "right wing hate group" and "letting anti-feminists gather to celebrate the harassment and intimidation of women in tech." When the management didn't budge and Sommers's tweet about Chu's efforts sparked a backlash, Chu posted a petulant response: "Whatever, it's ending tonight with them meeting up there." Some GamerGaters took this as a bizarre threat, though I assume he meant simply that the issue would be over.

On my way to Local 16 shortly after the gathering's official 9:30 starting time, I braced myself for a protest; but the scene was remarkably peaceful.  That is, until a little after midnight, when the revelry was interrupted by a sudden announcement from a staffer that everyone was being asked to evacuate the building. The guests were reassured that this was simply a "fire drill"; but the explanation seemed rather fishy, especially when I was not allowed to retrieve my jacket from the meeting's second-floor main room before heading downstairs. (Fortunately, a friendly gamer rescued it for me.) There were police officers outside, but no sign of firefighters.

When I got back to my hotel room and checked Twitter, there was chatter about a bomb scare; apparently, there had been a tweet threatening to detonate "multiple bombs" if the #GGinDC meeting was not evacuated. On Sunday, Washington, DC's Metropolitan Police Department confirmed that it had received information from the FBI about the Twitter threat and had contacted the management, which made the decision to to have the premises cleared and checked for hazardous materials (none were found). According to the MPD, "the incident remains under investigation."

Yiannopoulos has described the incident as a "bomb threat from feminists," which certainly sounds like a rush to judgment; meanwhile, Chu has been lamenting the unfair blowback against him. There is a definite element of poetic justice here, since GamerGaters have repeatedly insisted that they were being wrongly blamed for acts of harassment perpetrated by unknown trolls and have had a hard time getting the media to listen (despite actually tracking down and identifying one prolific online harasser of feminist game critic Anita Sarkeesian).

Sorting out the rights and wrongs of Internet wars is a thankless task; particularly with a leaderless, unstructured hashtag group such as GamerGate, it is near-impossible to determine for sure whether a particular instance of harassment is connected to the movement or is the work of outside trolls. Are there actual GamerGate supporters who have engaged in abusive behavior online? Very likely so. But there are many documented instances of anti-GamerGaters using startlingly violent language and making presumably non-literal threats toward "Gaters"; some of them have been compiled by British left-libertarian journalist Alum Bokhari, also a guest at the DC meetup. Ironically, as Bokhari demonstrates, last February GamerGate archfoe developer Brianna Wu expressed alarm over tweets jocularly threatening a sarin gas attack at the Penny Arcade Expo under the mistaken impression that it was a threat from GamerGate; after realizing that was a threat against pro-GamerGate "idiots," Wu deleted her post.

In another instance of unintended irony, GamerGate opponents have urged the Steam Community entertainment platform not to fund a project by pro-GamerGate female game developer Jennifer Dawe.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media have continued to recycle the "misogynist hate mob" narrative of GamerGate—most recently, with a long article by Zachary Jason in Boston Magazine melodramatically titled "Game of Fear." Jason focuses mainly on the story of game developer Zoe Quinn and her ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni, whose long blogpost about Quinn's liaisons with people in the gaming industry and the gaming media was the spark that eventually ignited GamerGate. It's an incredibly convoluted saga in which the charges and countercharges would short-circuit the brain of Sherlock Holmes. (Gjoni offers his rebuttal to Jason's reporting on his blog.) But in at least one instance, Jason cites an example of alleged GamerGate harassment that has already been disproved: a YouTube video in which a hammer-wielding man in a skull mask calls for "the death of Brianna Wu." More than two months ago, BuzzFeed, no friend to GamerGate, revealed that this video was the work of a "trolling sketch comedian," Jan Rankowski, whose intent was to satirize GamerGate.

Photo by Cathy Young and Brandon MorsePhoto by Cathy Young and Brandon MorseAs it happens, Jason contacted me for comment while working on his article; in early February, he emailed me a list of questions and a reminder a few days later. On February 14, I sent back a two-page email answering his questions but also noting that I thought many of them were based on a wrong premise: that GamerGate is an anti-woman harassment campaign. I mentioned instances in which people involved in GamerGate—including women such as Lizzy Finnegan, who is no longer directly involved with GamerGate but is still sympathetic to the movement and who now writes for the gaming culture magazine The Escapist—were not only subjected to severe verbal abuse in the social media but had their personal information disclosed online. I also suggested that he talk to two other female journalists who have written fairly, though not uncritically, about GamerGate—TechRaptor's Georgina Young and Canadian feminist TV host and author Liana Kerzner. That was the last I heard from Jason; he never contacted Young or Kerzner, and did not quote a single word from my email. He did, however, quote Chu.

Will the #GGinDC meetup affect the mainstream narrative? Perhaps; the gaming site Polygon, which generally embraces a "social justice" agenda in culture and entertainment and has been virulently negative toward GamerGate, ran a surprisingly unbiased account of the event. Bomb threats and harassment aside, it was difficult not to be impressed with the genuine diversity of the GamerGate crowd at the meetup. And yes, there were quite a few women in attendance—including at least one lesbian couple—who were definitely not animatronic sockpuppets. Some of these women may identify as "anti-feminist";  but clearly, what they oppose is the illiberal feminism of people like Sarkeesian who sneer at "hyper individualism," dismiss personal choice, and treat Western women as helpless puppets of patriarchy.

GamerGate is certainly not above criticism. For my taste, it has not been willing enough to disavow the creepier denizens of the "manosphere" who have been riding its coattails, from acolytes of pick-up artist guru Roosh V to weirdo ultra-reactionary blogger Vox Day. Unfortunately, any movement that takes on feminism—even feminism in its extreme forms—is likely to be a magnet for genuine misogynists. But the "social justice warriors" on the anti-GamerGate side, who regularly get a pass from the media, are quite toxic themselves.

If I had any doubts about defending GamerGate from its detractors, #GGinDC put them to rest. The men I saw were not creeps, and the women I saw were definitely not doormats. And while the bomb threat was fake, the meetup was a blast.

Top photo: Lizzy Finnegan, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Cathy Young.

Bottom photo: Lizzy Finnegan, Lauren, and Cathy Young.

Photo Credit: Br3nda/Foter

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    OT: Survival mode starting to kick in? The times, they are a changin'

    http://www.bloomberg.com/polit.....e-movement

  • John||

    You have to remember, Weigel is retarded. So of course the story puzzles him. Nearly everything does.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    “What he is going through, I can't imagine or relate to, but I know from just the look and the sound and the voice that it must have been hell,” Graham told Bloomberg.

    Suuuuuuuure you don't, Lindsay

  • Florida Man||

    I know Santorum is hated here but,

    Santorum was not making a blanket statement about transgender rights. “I don't think the federal government should get into the whole issue of bathrooms,” he said. “I think those are things that the business community and local organizations should deal with.”

    ,this is spot on.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah. Very few people are wrong all the time.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Hillary springs to mind…..

  • Brochettaward||

    And the characterization of the sentiment is completely wrong. Santorum was expressing a limited government view and it had nothing to do with morality of the action.

    The progs created the bathroom situation with their regulations. IT wouldn't exist if they didn't force their views of a better world on society in the first place.

  • erissa||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
    www.work-cash.com

  • erissa||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
    www.work-cash.com

  • Illocust||

    "Some of these women may identify as "anti-feminist"; but clearly, what they oppose is the illiberal feminism of people like Sarkeesian who sneer at "hyper individualism," dismiss personal choice, and treat Western women as helpless puppets of patriarchy."

    This quote is very true in my case. I rarely identify as anti-feminist (I prefer MRA), but I am extremely opposed to feminism as it is presented in nearly every interaction I have with it. The Sommers of the world are just not frequent enough to redeem the movement in my eyes.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, Wendy McElroy was the first self-proclaimed feminist that I read were I thought finally a feminist that views women as strong individuals capable of independent thought.

  • Libertymike||

    Wendy is a hero of mine.

  • Dweebston||

    I don't bother with MRAs (although I quite like Karen Straughan's oeuvre). As movements go, it's probably better to address "men's rights" issues separately—conflating alimony reform with the preponderance of men in prison with mental illness with falling graduation rates really only taints efforts in all of those domains. The logrolling tactic isn't a feature of feminism men should be eager to adopt. Too much political jockeying down that road.

    I'm antifeminist for the same reason I'm anti-Marxist generally: critical social theory is venal anti-civilization theology for misanthropes and nihilists.

  • Illocust||

    Eh, I can see the argument behind that. I mainly use the title to hold up the fact that I care about all those issues an infinity times more than I do banning the word 'bossy'.

  • Dweebston||

    Don't forget the thigh gap. We must address the thigh gap.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I always address it. Multiple ways.

  • Libertymike||

    Sounds very, very interesting.

  • Sevo||

    "hyper individualism,"

    I presume this refers to anyone who does not need government approval for all actions?

  • Brezey||

    Fair enough, but it was really callous of Cathy to attempt to subvert others' opinions on what feminism means to them. I, for one, am shamelessly anti-feminist, but I've no problem with reasonable people like Sommers identifying as feminists. Still, we don't need people like Cathy Young trying to reinterpret the ideas and opinions of other people.

  • AlmightyJB||

    OT: More Joan Walsh banality.

    http://humanevents.com/2015/05.....nk-for-me/

  • John||

    Someone needs to ask Joan why we don't just round up and gas all of the white people in this country. If they are such a problem, maybe we need a final solution for it.

  • Dweebston||

    Whose going to work the slavemines for Equalitopia, John? Think!

  • ||

    They're getting to it, just give them a little time. Geez, even Hitler didn't load up the train cars on day one.

  • Idle Hands||

    What do these people think would happen if white people just disappeared?

  • Florida Man||

    Better music?
    Better food?
    Better athletes?

    Dare I say it? UTOPIA!!!!!

  • Idle Hands||

    No French or Italian food though. Probably wouldn't miss to much.

  • Dweebston||

    Have your watched much Iron Chef? The Japs have European gourmet sewn up. Assuming they're not executed as quislings along with other successful Asian ethnic groups, that is.

  • RickC||

    So the lousy Japs have appropriated western cuisine! I think I've been triggered.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    I read an essay by an inner city teacher who asked this question of her class.

    An insightful youth responded with a laugh, "Oh, man, we be screwed then!"

    Let the healing begin...

  • Idle Hands||

    From what I understand from my buddy who did the teach the inner city school thing a majority of the people believe that blacks are the majority in the usa.

  • ||

    Well, as far as the bus can take them, they are.

    Did that sound racist? I need to start declaring my privilege before I post.

  • Careless||

    The largest majority black city is Detroit, which is 18th in the country now.

  • MarkLastname||

    Isn't the city itself over 90% black? Does that make it the most 'diverse' city in the country?

  • psCargile||

    Africa and the Middle East?

  • Idle Hands||

    Are those places devoid of racism/institutionalized underclass?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Like in Left Behind?

  • ||

    Utopia!

  • Pope Tyrannicus XVI||

    Oh they know they'd be fucked

  • John||

    This followed an unsuccessful social media campaign spearheaded by anti-GamerGate Salon columnist Arthur Chu to convince the bar’s proprietors to voluntarily eject GamerGate supporters from their establishment.

    http://www.breitbart.com/londo.....mb-threat/

    Remember that Sarah Palin was responsible for the Giffords' shooting because she put a target sign on a map. Chu of course has nothing to be ashamed of here.

  • Andrew S.||

    Chu blocked me on Twitter because I called him out on his bullshit. I'm still sad. :(

    He's been complaining about the backlash he's received. Basically he's been saying "I think people should be punished for their speech! Why are people punishing me for my speech? I think the right things!"

  • John||

    He thinks people should be punished for their speech, so how can he be responsible for someone trying to do just that? The threat was of course fake. That wasn't the point. The point was to disrupt the meeting, which is exactly what Chu wanted.

  • Rhywun||

    It must be tough to be a fascist these days, what with not having total control over all media.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I still don't understand what Gamergate is and, to be frank, I don't really care to know at this point. The stakes seem so pathetically low I'm shocked anyone cares beyond hardcore gamers and hypersensitive feminists.

  • John||

    The stakes are higher than you think. Gamergate is about the ability of fascists to take over the media and bully corporations into producing only content that meets their approval. The market doesn't always solve all when fascists are able to bully businesses into not producing some content. You can see this in Hollywood. Patriotic war movies and religious movies are sure box office winners. Yet, these sorts of movies are rarely produced because fascists in Hollywood have ensured that anyone associated with such a movie sees their career ruined. They want to do the same with video games. It won't matter that video games are mostly consumed by men and that they want fun, violent fantasy games. They will ensure that developers and game companies give politically correct games that properly instruct those evil males about good politics. Gamer gate is about the consumers pushing back against that. The details of Sarkesian and the rest of the SJW freaks are just incidental.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    From what I've heard about some of the games SJWs want to make (like something called "Depression Quest" about living with depression) I can't imagine they'll be taking over any markets. Because games are supposed to be, you know, fun and enjoyable.

    Now if game developers start creating better developed, playable female characters and integrating them into stories in response to feminist critiques, I don't see how or why anyone could have a problem with that.

  • John||

    What happened was they made that game, and the gaming media fell all over itself telling the world how wonderful it was, even though it was laughably stupid. The whole "scandal" such as it was, was the fact that the SJWs were in bed with the gaming companies, in some cases literally, in order to get games that fit their totalitarian world view promoted over others. The long term goal was of course to ensure only their world view ever got made.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    What really sent things off wasn't the game but Zoe Quinn's attempt to derail a women-in-games gamejam produced by the radical feminist group The Fine Young Capitalists in favor of her own gamejam. The TFYC gamejam requires transwomen to have been out for a year before being eligible to participate in the gamejam. Zoe Quinn objected to that requirement as "transphobic" and described it as "oppressive" and "slavery" since the developers only got 8% of the proceeds, some went to the people who wrote the game & created the art, and the rest went to charity. She (and her associates) then started released the personal information on TFYC, got TFYC kicked off Twitter, crashed their website, hacked the Indiegogo website to end the TFYC gamejam fundraiser, and tried to push her own gamejam in its place (a gamejam that didn't have an announced start date, judges, etc.).

    Adam Baldwin saw all that brewing and started encouraging people to donate to TFYC's gamejam with the tag "GamerGate" and things took off from there. People from reddit and 4chan donated some 32K to TFYC's gamejam before it got hacked.

  • RAHeinlein||

    The issue is far beyond actual games - there is significant trolling of games/gamers, and movements to ban speech, actions, characters. My son is a hardcore gamer (and Reason reader), so although an alien world to me, I have regular updates.

    I've been surprised by the lack of support on the Reason comment boards - these gamers are fighting the libertarian fight at the ground level.

  • Dweebston||

    I don't dispute your premise, but whose career in Hollywood is being ruined? They're routinely snubbed for awards, sure, but blacklisted? That's probably not a road you want to walk down given the history of Hollywood and blacklisting. Cooper's a hot commodity and Eastwood has enjoyed an impressive twilight career producing war movie blockbusters.

  • John||

    Everyone should care because art means a lot to civilization. Why do you think it is so hard to get people to listen to the small government position? Don't you think fifty years of Hollywood propaganda about evil corporations and crusading good government advocates has something to do with that? Progs understand that art and culture matter because they are the terms of the debate. Control those and you just make your opponents' views unacceptable for consideration. And they have pretty effectively done that with small government and especially Libertarian views.

  • Win Bear||

    Everyone should care because art means a lot to civilization.

    Art and civilization are both overrated.

    Give me some fun video games, and I don't care whether anybody considers them "art" or "civilized".

    Progs understand that art and culture matter because they are the terms of the debate. Control those and you just make your opponents' views unacceptable for consideration.

    Progs (like social conservatives) are so disconnected from real-world art and culture that they are incapable of controlling it.

    Just the number of all-women metal bands having fun with gender stereotypes in ways that SJWs don't approve of would be enough to make their heads explode if they ever found out about it.

  • John||

    Progs (like social conservatives) are so disconnected from real-world art and culture that they are incapable of controlling it.

    They are so incapable of controlling it, they have made Libertarian and small government views completely unacceptable to most people in this country. You think that is an accident? And no one listens to or gives a shit about those all women metal bands. The progs will get around to dealing with them. In the mean time, they can do what they like and progs can go to bed safe in the knowledge no one will ever listen to them or care.

  • Win Bear||

    They are so incapable of controlling it, they have made Libertarian and small government views completely unacceptable to most people in this country.

    That's not "art and culture", that's public school indoctrination, a takeover of science and universities, and control of large parts of the media. And despite that, "most people" in the country still tend towards libertarianism and small government; if you ever lived in Europe, you'd realize how far we can still fall.

  • Azathoth!!||

    public school indoctrination, a takeover of science and universities,

    Culture.

    control of large parts of the media

    Art

    The fact that we can fall further does not mean that we have not fallen far.

    Try to remember when we first saw PSAs against 'verbal abuse', PSAs with the premise that 'words can hurt'. And then look at the ages of the rising wave of SJWs

    See the cat? See the cradle?

  • ||

    Eastwood won Best Director didn't he? I think he's more acclaimed as a director than he ever was as an actor. And American Sniper got nominated for Best Picture.

  • Cyto||

    Doesn't fit the premise. Not a pro-war movie. Not even a rah-rah patriotic movie.

    It was a war-is-hell, pro-soldier movie. Much more palatable to the progressive mindset. And it still got more than its fair share of undeserved vitriol.

  • Cyto||

    You have to go back quite a way to find flag-waving patriotic war movies from Hollywood. Things like "Guns of Navarone", everything with John Wayne in it, Audie Murphy movies... Stuff like that.

    Basically the film version of first person shooters in video games. Our guy is the hero. All of the enemy soldiers are evil bad guys. Our hero shoots them all.

    (see how I brought that back to video games? That's a sign of quality writing right there.... )

  • ||

    ???? Progressives HATED Ameircan Sniper with a burning passion. So much so that they actually campaigned to cancel a screening of it at the University of Maryland. it was not "palatable" at all. Chris Kyle is (to them) a racist war criminal, and American Sniper, is a racist movie that glorifies killing rag-heads. They compared it to the film in the closing scene of Inglorious Bastards. Have you been paying any attention at all to what they have been writing about it?

    And it STILL got nominated for Best Picture.

  • John||

    The votes came in before the left declared it the enemy. And that movie is a rarity despite making a ton of money. Yes, even marginally patriotic war movies are sure winners. Yet, they are almost never made.

  • ||

    You mean like Fury?
    Maybe people don't really like jingoistic war films. Maybe they actually *prefer* films that show war as being gritty and sucking a lot.

  • John||

    Hazel, that stupid Navy Seals movie a few years ago made a fortune. And Fury is a world war II movie. I am talking about movies that relate to the war on terror.

  • jay_dubya||

    producing films about wars while they take place has been taboo for a long time and at this point has very little to do with partisanship

  • Zeb||

    I still think the stakes aren't that high. If the video game media allows itself to be bullied like that, they will just become irrelevant to the majority of people who are into video games. I am sure the game companies know who pays the bills and aren't about to move away from the kinds of games that make them lots of money.

  • John||

    What are the gamers going to do if no one will produce what they want? You say the market will sovle, but it really doesn't with movies. And sure, you can just check out and ignore it. Meanwhile another area of life is lost to t he Prog hive and the next generation of kids grows up and buys the Prog approved games because they don't know any better.

    You guys refuse to understand that culture matters. You can't win an argument if the Progs are allowed to control the entire culture and media.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not convinced that they have done what you say to the movie industry. Yeah, the anti-corporate stuff is pretty strong in Hollywood, but as far as I can see there are plenty of successful war movies and religious movies. You can hardly say that the SJWs have had their way. There is still plenty of stuff for them to complain about and be offended by.

    Like I said, it's really not my scene. But as far as I can see the video game companies know their audience and are doing quite well providing the sorts of games that they want.

  • John||

    Sure they know their audience and that is what the Progs are trying to change. And if you don't think Hollywood is run by Progs and relentlessly delivers the Prog approved message and moves this country further to the left as a result, then you really don't think much of anything is a problem and won't be bothered by whatever the Progs do in gaming or anything else. So yes, you probably shouldn't care. Everyone else, however, might want to care.

  • Zeb||

    Oh, Hollywood is certainly run by progressive sorts.

    But I can't just go around caring about everything that much. It's not good for one's health. It's not that I don't think there is anything wrong. It's that there is nothing to be done. My caring or not is irrelevant.
    If the culture is as far gone as you say, then that's the way we're going. My saying it's a big deal in some internet comments isn't going to help. I hope things are going to change directions at some point, but I'm not going to do anything about it.

  • ||

    The best they could do was force Mel Gibson to name is movie "the Passion of THE Christ" instead of "The passion of Christ". The film still got released, and still made (IDK) over $100m

  • Cyto||

    and still made (IDK) over $100m

    Yeah, I'd say so. About a half-billion over $100m.

    The most interesting thing I learned on that boxofficemojo page was that they listed the Passion of the Christ not only as a religious movie, but as a middle-east travelogue.

  • Xeones||

    Come for the falafel, stay for the bone-deep scourging!

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Games are gettig cheaper and cheaper to produce, requiring less and less expensive talent. Eventually the graphics will be so easy to generate that people will produce games as birthday presents for siblings.

    At that point, it won't matter what the gaming companies want. Sure, professionals will have more consistent themes and plots and so on, but it will no longer be a top-down industry; they will be begging the amateurs for ideas.

    (I hate copyright and patents and all so-called intelectual property, and take great joy in knowing that here is where their copyright regimes will bite them in the ass -- no matter what they produce, scads of amateurs will sue for copyright violation. They will finally see their fence from the wrong side, how it has locked them out of the creative side of the market they want to control, leaving them with the boring repetitive copyright corral which is all that can come of stifling creativity.)

  • greasonable (was sthgrau)||

    I think film is a vanguard example for this. Yes, it is much cheaper to create a film nowadays, but the big budget films have only gotten bigger.

  • ||

    There's too much money in it. Not going to happen. GTA 5 sales hit 1 billion in sales not long after release, and it was just released on PC about a month ago.

  • Zeb||

    That's what I am saying. Video games are not Hollywood movies. They have a more specific and committed audience. And that audience seems to want fairly specific things and will complain if they don't get them.

  • ||

    They won't have to complain, because the left are unable to stop this, it's too big and now a lot of games that people want are crowd funded. And most people do not want to play 'My Little Pony 5' or 'Let's make Michelle O's lunch'. They want as much violence and non-pc as they can get. Watch a trailer for GTA 5 or Witcher 3 and see how much you think the SJWs like those games. Tough shit for them.

  • Brandybuck||

    And that audience seems to want fairly specific things and will complain if they don't get them.


    Thing is, there are a thousand audiences here. Every little niche of a genre has its own audience. John Madden Football has a different audience than Skyrim has a different audience than Grand Theft Auto has a different audience than Minecraft has a different audience than Portal has a different audience than Civilization has a different audience than etc., etc.

    GamerGate affects just a tiny handful of corners in the gaming universe. Other than the YouTube algorithms going crazy and pumping anti-Sarkeesian videos into my recommended feed, this issue would be completely off my radar.

  • Zeb||

    Well, I am sure I don't know anything about the details. I am that rare man under 40 who doesn't have any real interest in video games.

  • ||

    I think it's more that some people just can't believe the fucking bullshit that the SJWs get away with, in terms for forcing people to cater to their political prejudices.

    Nobody's going to stop making fantasy video games with big-titted scantily clad women in the. What they will do is make boring poltically correct games and give them awards.

    But all that does is discredit the awards. It's like, just 'Birdman' won best picture doesn't mean it's going to gross more box office revenue than American Sniper, or The Avengers, or whatnot.

    Besides the fact that some developers will actually only take half of the SJWs advice and just make video games that have interesting female characters without all the political bullshit. Like with film, sometimes the art film crowd is more concerned with art than with politics.

  • RAHeinlein||

    See my post above - this is not simply about "game types" in the traditional sense. Most games at this point are online, multiplayer, with significant live interaction - there are fundamental free speech/association issues at-stake.

  • RickC||

    Yeah, I agree with John. It's bigger than just gamers. Have you been following the Sad Puppies/Hugo Award dust up? The revolt against these fascist assholes had to start somewhere. It seems appropriate that the gaming and sci-fi crowd would be the ones to kick it off.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Heinlein would be proud.

    -jcr

  • Arisuka||

    You're spot on about Hollywood. You can see this countless times just by watching almost any Vietnam war movie outside of the one with John Wayne in it. They're all anti-war and anti-Vietnam war. They make it seem as if America was totally against that war and no one wanted to be drafted, etc., and yet 3/4 of the soldiers fighting in Vietnam were volunteers. It was only 1/4 for WWII. The people who were so against the Vietnam war became the Hollywood elitists.

  • Almanian!||

    I'm shocked anyone cares beyond hardcore gamers and hypersensitive feminists.

    "Oh goody! That's a Bingo! What FUN!"

    /Hans Landa

    Yeah, I think that's pretty much it. Which reminds me...

    "Nerds! Nerds! Nerds! NERDS! NERDS! NERDS! NERDS! NERDS! NERDS!!!"

  • Florida Man||

    Did you see the documentary about finding and digging up the ET games for Atari? That movie is full of nerds. It's like a nerd zoo documentary.

  • Idle Hands||

    I'm with you on this.

  • ||

    GamerGate is important because it's the latest front in the culture wars in which radical leftists try to force out all "problematic" content from innocent nerd hobby. Except this is the first time the people in the hobby under assault have fought back.

  • Illocust||

    Continuously fought back. Every group fights, very few groups keep fighting for eight months of demonization. Seriously, difference between the blitzkrieg and trench warfare.

  • Dweebston||

    Gaming is a culture already steeped in the anti-PC ethic of online anonymity. I can't think of a worse target for conversion by public shaming.

  • Jaybirdmojo||

    Moreover, they're a bunch of adolescents who don't date much, have opinions, and are steeped in a mythology that says that you are supposed to fight back against bad guys and never, ever give up.

  • Ronnie Schreiber||

    The SJWs made the strategic error of bring their war to people who play networked war games for a hobby.
    As for the sci-fi Sad Puppies thing, in a propaganda war it doesn't hurt to have some successful writers on your side, people who know how to communicate with large numbers of people.

  • ||

    It's about a group of morons who think that men enjoying games created mostly by men, is bad. And who attacked gamers and now wish the fuck that they had used their brains before jumping into the fire.

  • KDN||

    If you ever do care, Popehat did a pretty complete breakdown.

    http://popehat.com/2014/10/21/.....s-to-obit/

  • Andrew S.||

    I absolutely despise every single person involved in GamerGate. The GGers are a bunch of emotionally stunted man-children who hate women because they can't get laid. The anti-GGers are a bunch of misandrists who want to be angry about something. I just want them all to shut the fuck up and crawl back into their holes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think they should all start dating.

  • Almanian!||

    Each other.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's what I meant. Each other. And only each other.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Can we contribute to a fund for their contraception?

    And/or open a spay/neuter clinic?

    It's not like we want more of them...

  • Xeones||

    Yeah, but when their kids hit the teenage years they'll probably rebel against the values of their parents by becoming rational, pleasant human beings.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Don't take the chance.

    Take off and nuke them from orbit.

    It's the only way to be sure.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    you win. holy shit. you win.

  • Florida Man||

    Prol, Prol, Prol. This is why you will never be emperor. You only think one step ahead. What about all the offspring created by a nerd/feminist coupling? Do you really want these idiots to multiple?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Nah, regression to the mean will solve such trouble.

  • John||

    Christina Hoff Sommers is recently widowed. Maybe her and Sarkesian can have a dynastic lesbian wedding that would make the peace.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Gross

  • Ken Shultz||

    Feminists: "We're the victims of misogyny!"

    Gamers: "We're the victims of the feminists!"

    As a libertarian, it's the victimization of our rights that makes me want to cry.

  • John||

    You shouldn't Andrew. Whatever you think of the gamers, they have a right to be left alone and to play whatever games they like. It wasn't the gamers who are the aggressors here. It is the fascist left who decided that there was another area of culture that must be absorbed into the hive mind and are now shocked that someone stood up to them.

  • Zeb||

    I agree that they should be left alone. But the ones who make idiotic online threats can get fucked. I can't stand that shit.

  • John||

    That is the only currency the Left understands. Instapundit posted a Horace Wallpoe quote saying that no country was ever saved by good men because good men will never go to the lengths that may be necessary.

    The threats and such are certainly not a good thing. The people we are dealing with, however, are fanatical scum. You can't fight people like and remain a good person if you expect to win.

  • Zeb||

    Well, I say if you stop being a good person, you lose. You are conceding that that is how you fight cultural battles and that just makes everything worse. People that don't care too much will just see that both sides are assholes.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    If you are justified in fighting you are justified in doing what is needed to win.

    Not pleasant - but does not necessarily make you a bad person.

  • Zeb||

    But in this case it does. This is a cultural debate, not a real war. If you are concerned about the state of the culture, all the poo-flinging, insults and threats are not going to improve things. And you aren't going to get much sympathy from the broader culture who can't be bothered to look at the actual issues involved in any depth.

  • Wlinden||

    As they are shocked that the people who voted for Hugo nominations stood up to them, and have responded with not "Our favored stories are better", but with a pack of vile lies about "racist sexist misogynists fascists", which has already suceeded in bullying a woman (and a bisexual socialist) to withdraw from the ballot so she could be replaced by a man. Wait until they pull this at Worldcon.

  • Illocust||

    Blick, why would I want to sleep with women? I'm a hetrosexual thank you very much.

  • Dweebston||

    I recently found out my brother's gay. He went and knocked up a girl. Gaaaaaaay.

  • Win Bear||

    Actually, the anti-GGers are also emotionally stunted man-children; their mating strategy is to rescue the damsels in distress.

  • HolgerDanske||

    Yeah. It's odd how the whole white-knight phenomenon isn't reviled by the feminists right along with gamergate.

  • Redmanfms||

    Oh, it is. For now they're useful idiots.

  • A Horse Called Trigger||

    From now on, Glow-ball culture will be just a series of trollfests and online ragestorms.
    The era will be called - The Internet Dark Age.

  • Ken Shultz||

    For non-libertarians, politics is just a fight over the right to true victim status.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Anyone else think the girl on the left looks a little like Emma Stone?

  • Almanian!||

    uhhhhh - just you and Jim Carrey

  • John||

    And Ray Charles.

  • Almanian!||

    hah!

  • John||

    In fairness, she looks fairly cute. I wouldn't kick her out of bed, but she is not Emma Freaking Stone.

  • Idle Hands||

    Who is not cute. Seriously don't get that fad.

  • John||

    She was in Zombieland and one of the Spiderman movies. Dorks have low standards for beauty. The best way for a junior varisty actress to get treated like a real beauty is to be the female lead in a comic book, SCIFI or horror movie that attracts a big dork following.

  • Idle Hands||

    The poorest version ever.

  • Loki||

    B-b-but... I thought it was only those vile hateful right wing misogynistic rape apologists who are prone to violence, not those pure hearted SJWs. /sarcasm

    I'm sure CNN and MSMBC will be covering this any second now...

  • A Horse Called Trigger||

    An additional Kulturkampf tempest-teacup is this year's Hugo awards and the racist/misoginistic/bad people of Sad Puppies using the rules to get on the nominations lists.

    I read about these things and wonder if these people have jobs or families or maybe just a favorite tv show. How do they invest so much time and passion into little wars about trivialities. Don't they follow sports?

  • John||

    It seems trivial except that Progressives, because they are so fanatical and relentless, make it otherwise. In one sense, you are right, who cares about the Hugos? The problem is relentlessly taking over every single institution and area of culture is what Progs do. The depend on everyone else not being a demented retard and having better things to do than fight about such things. Over time, however, all of those little things add up and one day you wake up and the progs run the entire culture and every institution.

  • ||

    " one day you wake up and the progs run the entire culture and every institution."

    And then they run the government with no opposition. Totalitarianism doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens because people want/allow if to happen. I get tired of the culture war shit too, but a culture that enthusiastically tells fascists to go piss up a rope is and will always be the best defense against the total state.

  • Dweebston||

    go piss up a rope

    Check your urinary privilege. Many people have no choice but to piss down a rope.

  • HolgerDanske||

    Stop pissing down with your comedy!

  • John||

    I agree completely.

  • ||

    Over time, however, all of those little things add up and one day you wake up and the progs run the entire culture and every institution.

    What are you talking about? You'll still have plenty of variety.

    From Twilight to The Host and Divergent to The Hunger Games you'll have a wide array of Sci-Fi themes re-hashed through the awkward/giggly teen girl lens to choose from.

    Nothing challenges the human condition and twists the psyche like '50 Shades' with less sex and set in the future.

  • ||

    They're only one internet away from doing that, John. And they are working hard on that right now. Once that happens, it's game over, checkmate, the mask will finally come completely off and we'll basically live in the new soviet socialist republic of america, complete with walls, death camps, and all the other goodies.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't get it.

  • Almanian!||

    Oh....well, let's go play handball again....

    /Big

  • psCargile||

    All this bullshit over the time honored tradition of trading pussy for favorable reviews.

  • ||

    Haha, no.

  • ||

    Release the Botard!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So something like my 9mo in an ankle-deep wading pool.

  • Zeb||

    I really don't get why this is a big thing. Yeah, the people who want to impose their critical feminist theory on the video game world are obnoxious and ridiculous.

    Both sides seem to be being giant assholes. I find the whole internet mob thing very distasteful, especially when it devolves into ridiculous threats.

  • Idle Hands||

    rabble rabble rabble gamergate! rabble rabble rabble feminism!

  • sarcasmic||

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So no different than gay pizza then.

  • Zeb||

    I do have more sympathy for the pizza people who just honestly answered a question than for any of these people.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    It is distasteful. You should ignore the whole thing.

    It's not like they'll ever attack anything you care about.

  • Zeb||

    No, "they" probably won't. And my ignoring it or not won't make any difference to anything.

  • Swiss Servator, Switzier!||

    First they came for the Gamers, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Gamer.

    Then they came for the College Students, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a College Student.

    Then they came for the Cartoonists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Cartoonist.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    /slight sarcasm

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives have gotten used to playing radical chic games with violence, having been at it for quite a while. And they've been very successful in overwriting the history of the LIRP movement to erase that tendency. Very few people remember that the "protesters" at Kent State had set fore to a building and interfered with firefighters on the scene the night before the National Guard was called in.

    But they are getting caught more, and getting called on it more, and finding it harder to squirm out from under it. The ability of the internet to defeat the gatekeeper function of the Media is helping, as is the basic mental laziness of the LIRPs, who have gotten so used to being lionized by the Media that they no longer know how to deal with criticism.

    I hope the imbecile who made the bomb threat gets caught, and gets charged.

  • John||

    Me too. And I hope the imbecile turns out to be Aurthur Chu.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    He's more like the mob boss... he doesn't get his hands dirty. That's the underling's job.

  • ||

    Why do you think the left are pushing so hard for the government to regulate the internet? An unregulated internet is their worst enemy. They need to control the narrative because that is a huge part of the ability of the left to silence their critics so that only their message is heard. Until just recently, they have been able to do just that through complete control of the main stream media and Hollywood, and academia, all of which they still have complete control of. But they can't control the internet and that is slapping them upside the head in a way they have not encountered before. This is why we'll see a strong push to censor the internet and control speech until finally, the internet will just be a collection of leftist groupthink just like Hollywood, just like the MSM news, just like academia.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have said, of and on since the 1970's, that the people who bitch about bais in the media need to stop whining and start byong newspapers and TV stations. Fox blew a big opportunity when they went with "We report, you decide" instead of "here's OUR point of view."

  • Win Bear||

    I think as far as Chu is concerned, his "feminism" is likely a strategy to attract women, given that his options otherwise would probably be pretty limited.

  • ||

    That only attracts women as friends, not for sex. Women look down on men who they can manipulate like that, and only think of them as their best gf.

  • Win Bear||

    He may get a few pity fucks out of it, which is better than nothing.

  • ||

    So, who is this Chu guy? He looks like a total pussy.

  • fish||

    So, who is this Chu guy?

    HE NAMED NAMES........

    http://tinyurl.com/Arthur-gets-a-real-job

  • DJ1706||

    How exactly does libertarian thought line up on the side of "GamerGate"?

    The entire thing started as a hatefest against Zoe Quinn when she dumped her boyfriend, who wrote an excruciatingly long and pretentious tell-all accusing her of being a giant ho-bag.

    Whose business is it who Zoe Quinn fucks? Her boyfriend's, I suppose, or the wife of any married man she slept with, but why is it anyone else's? Why does a whole "movement" get started around that?

    Is it the Libertarian way to police who people sleep with?

    I'm told, in more lucid moments from a few of the non-insane "gaters," that it's about "integrity" in "games journalism."

    So, in other words, it's about what people write in blogs about toys.

    Is there ANYTHING on Earth less important than that?

    And what's the solution, some kind of regulation? Is THAT the Libertarian way?

    The entire thing goes on the private sphere. No law is at issue here. So why does Libertarian thought pick a side?

  • Xeones||

    Who is this "Libertarian Thought" person?

    I nitpick, but it beats wasting a single brain cell caring about any part of GamerGate.

  • DJ1706||

    You think there isn't a general body of Libertarian thought?

  • Swiss Servator, Switzier!||

    Have you been around here for long?!

  • DJ1706||

    Sure.

  • John||

    I would say it is important enough to someone to call in a bomb threat over it. The principle that people should be able to meet and associate in peace without worrying about a bomb threat is a pretty important one. And it's importance has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of the subject of the meeting.

    So, sorry "they are all just a bunch of dorks anyway" really doesn't feed the bull dog here.

  • DJ1706||

    I agree with that, but it isn't what I asked.

    I asked how LIbertarian thought is aligned with GamerGate.

    The actual (un)importance of "gaming journalism" certainly is a factor in that question.

  • John||

    The Libertarian end is that people ought to leave each other alone and the gamers are absolutely justified and telling the SJWs to go fuck themselves.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    If you fight back, you're as bad as the person attacking you!

    /the "cool" people

  • DJ1706||

    "If you fight back, you're as bad as the person attacking you!"

    Who said anything like that?

  • Swiss Servator, Switzier!||

    SJWs

  • DJ1706||

    I would imagine the Libertarian end to be on the side of free speech, to which Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian and whoever else are perfectly entitled, even if you don't like what they say.

    Or is it now a Libertarian end to protect people from speech they don't want to hear?

  • ||

    It seems to me it is the SJWs who are trying to shut down the speech of the GamerGaters.

  • DJ1706||

    There's no particular Libertarian interest in supporting the other side, either.

    Which is the point -- there are no Libertarian principles at stake in this fight. This is purely opinion against opinion, free speech against free speech.

    There is no greater truth here. There is no government action coercing anyone to do anything. Whatever anyone does here is entirely a matter of free will.

    Why Libertarian thought demands choosing one side over the other is beyond me. Libertarians are generally GOOD with free will, and letting ideas compete freely.

    Or has that changed?

  • Mr. Anderson||

    Progressives are trying to get video games changed to show women in their worldview. Their tactic is to basically bully game manufacturers, and mob them, and give them bad press until they make G-rated games. Gamers pushed back. In my version of Libertopia my transaction with someone should not be subject to bullying and approval by a third party. It's entirely in line with Libertaruan thought for gamers to tell SJW's to fuck off and leave their video games alone. They even helped make SJW games, but nobody liked them so the progs want more.

  • DJ1706||

    It's perfectly Libertarian to agree that GamerGate can say whatever they want.

    But there's no Libertarian principle requiring anyone to agree with what they say, or agree with their preference as to what video games should be.

    If video game companies are stupid enough to make games no one wants to buy, then that's their own business.

    Your transaction with someone ISN'T subject to bullying or approval by a third party. The game companies offer what they offer. No one stops you from buying a game, or choosing not to. If the company doesn't offer a game the way you want it, no one makes you buy it.

    What you actually want is for gaming companies to cater to your preferences, to offer the games that YOU want, rather than what THEY want. So do they. So, free speech vs. free speech, and free will exercised by everyone.

    I see no Libertarian reason why I need to throw in with you, or with them.

  • Redmanfms||

    I see no Libertarian reason why I need to throw in with you, or with them.

    Probably because you are a SJW troll who is misrepresenting what GG is actually about and you aren't actually a libertarian.

    Capitalizing libertarian is a big tell by the way.

  • ||

    Libertarians have a stake in ensuring that nobody gets to shut down anyone else's speech.

    There's also "thick" libertarianism, meaning libertarianism extending to cultural/social isuses in which we create a cultural tolerant of differences of opinion. On this issue, we see one side (the left) basically creating a cutlure of extreme intolerance toward anyone that challanges their moral and cultural authority.

    I think the SJWs on this issue, it's not even just that they're angry that these guys have a different opinion. It's that they're angry that the GamerGaters are challanging their status as the arbiters of moral correctness. That they're saying that "No you guys aren't morally superior and you don't have the right to tell us what sort of games we ought to be playing." That's much more infuriating than just quietly playing Grand Theft Auto.

  • DJ1706||

    "Libertarians have a stake in ensuring that nobody gets to shut down anyone else's speech."

    In which case I see no reason to support "GamerGate," because they sure want to do that.

    And if the other side wants to put a stop to certain aspects of video games, for whatever reason, they're no better, but they're no worse, either.

    This is purely opinion vs. opinion, in a realm of ZERO importance. And behavior-wise, no one looks any better than the other.

  • ||

    But the GamerGaters aren't actually succeeding in doing any of that. Their opponents ARE. I suppose if GG actually managed to get some feminist game developers fired then the story might change. The SJWs, on the other hand, have been quite successful in their attempt to ostracize GamerGaters and supress speech from Gamergaters.

  • DJ1706||

    So when both sides are trying to shut down speech, you should pick the side of the one that's losing? That's what you're basically arguing.

    It's like watching "Enemy At the Gates," Nazis vs. Soviets. I didn't see a reason to pick sides there, either. Neither was any more palatable than the other.

  • ||

    So when both sides are trying to shut down speech, you should pick the side of the one that's losing?

    Yes.
    Especially if you are the weaker third party. By aiding the losing side, you make it more likely that the two sides will reach a stalemate which forces them to tolerate eachother.

  • MarkLastname||

    "to which Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian and whoever else are perfectly entitled, even if you don't like what they say."
    Who exactly is saying they aren't entitled?

    Your "point" is positively bizarre. Criticizing someone's stupidity amounts to trying to deny them their rights to speak? That seems to be what you're saying; that people who complain about what others say are inherently threatening their right to speak, and that to be truly in favor of free speech one must ignore every stupid thing others say.

  • Rasilio||

    --"Whose business is it who Zoe Quinn fucks? Her boyfriend's, I suppose, or the wife of any married man she slept with, but why is it anyone else's? Why does a whole "movement" get started around that?"--

    Nobodies. But the origins of the Tea Parties was a single reporters rant on a financial news show. Where and how a movement got started is not the be all end all of what that movement means.

    The fact is no matter how stupid the allegations against Quinn as a person were they, as the Proggies like to call it, started a much larger and more serious "discussion" about a very very real problem.

    These game reviews all being filtered through a political lens rewarding idiotic games because they had the right "message" and ignoring the popular games is a real problem. Sure they are not going to put a stop to the GTA series but they absolutely will influence who ends up the next generation of lead developers and they will be chosen on the basis of their ideological purity, not their game making skill and then a decade down the line sure GTA is still in production but the video game industry is dying because outside of a few decaying franchises nobody has produced a game anyone would want to play in years. A decade after that gaming is essentially dead because nobody wastes their time with it anymore.

  • DJ1706||

    "These game reviews all being filtered through a political lens rewarding idiotic games because they had the right "message" and ignoring the popular games is a real problem. Sure they are not going to put a stop to the GTA series but they absolutely will influence who ends up the next generation of lead developers and they will be chosen on the basis of their ideological purity, not their game making skill and then a decade down the line sure GTA is still in production but the video game industry is dying because outside of a few decaying franchises nobody has produced a game anyone would want to play in years. A decade after that gaming is essentially dead because nobody wastes their time with it anymore."

    And this is a problem which should concern Libertarians in principle, because . . . ?

  • John||

    Because there is more to having a free society than the lack of government force. Your and other libertarian's inability to understand the importance of this is why Libertarians can be so frustratingly useless when confronted with fascists. It does not good to stop the government from taking away your freedoms if fascists are able to get society to do it for them.

  • DJ1706||

    What "freedom" is being "taken away" here?

  • Mr. Anderson||

    Association

  • DJ1706||

    How, exactly? Be specific.

  • ||

    The social/cultural freedom to public express opinions and views that diverge from progressive orthodoxy.

  • DJ1706||

    I'll ask you, too:

    How, exactly? Be specific.

  • ||

    By progressives attempting to organize boycotts of individuals for expressing wrong opinions.

    Now, be careful to note here that boycotts are voluntary so were not talking about *state* violence. But nevertheless, we could like to live in a *culture* where people of varying opinions are socially tolerated. Boycotting people for their opinions is something that crosses a line from acceptable attempts to influence behavior to unacceptable intolerance of mere private belief.

  • DJ1706||

    And you say GamerGate doesn't do that to the Sarkeesians of the world?

    Holy crap on a stick. Those are some blinders.

  • DJ1706||

    And that takes away freedom of "Association," how, even if it were true?

  • ZardozSpeaksToYou||

    Bomb Threat.

  • MarkLastname||

    I still don't get where your coming from. Your position basically is that one should be silent on all matters until someone's rights end up getting violated? So, when people propagate myths like women get paid 78 cents per dollar men earn, would you say that people who dare to attack the claim are being petty losers or something? Because after all, it's not like someone's trying to violate someone's right or anything.

    The fact is though, spurious claims are used to build the framework of an ideology which defines the world in terms of oppressed classes and evil oppressor classes whose rights are not worth protecting. Being a member of a couple of the former, yeah, the lunatics who use media to promote their spiteful worldview have every right to do so, but it doesn't mean I am not perfectly justified in being quite concerned about it.

  • GILMORE||

    Which question do you actually want answered?

    or do you, like the typical SJW, shit out rhetorical questions machine-gun fashion, then project whatever meaning you want onto any answer you receive?

    pick one, and try again

  • greasonable (was sthgrau)||

    DJ1706 was here earlier this year duking it out with Tony and Bo.. That alone gets them a free pass from me for a long while.
    As far as the question, I can see that this might not be an ideological libertarian issue, but it may be one that many libertarians like to talk about. So, I am not worried about it needing to be a libertarian issue in order to be discussed here.
    If it isn't the fact that many here are gamers who worry about their pastime, it is hard to ignore the fact that the "other side" on this issue rarely ends up on our side for any issue. That may not be logic, but it is reasonable enough to drink to.

  • Dietz||

    The thing with Quinn was #burgerandfries, NOT #gamergate. Gamergate got started when certain web sites started blanket banning all discussion about the apparent conflicts in journalism that the Quinn post brought to light. 4chan, reddit, Kotaku, all the major sites nuked all discussion on the subject.
    Then, in the space of 48 hours, twelve stories were posted, all with the same theme: gamers were dead.
    So, #gamergate turned into a major push back against an overall narrative that gamers were all misogynists living in their parent's basements.
    It has largely succeeded in reforming many gaming press sites, who now have policies about conflicts of interest and have introduced ethics policies.
    A side battle in the overall #gamergate fight has been the push back against the social justice advocates in media, who have said some utterly vile stuff about gaming, and who point their sycophant followers at their latest Twitter Outrage of the Moment. Just this weekend the SJWs got Josh Weedon to quit Twitter over some throw away joke line in Age of Ultron. Another example is that poor European scientist who sparked a Twitter shitstorm when he wore a non-SJW approved shirt while landing a probe on a freaking comet.

  • Win Bear||

    The reason libertarians care about GG is because we suspect that the Sarkesians and Quinns of this world are intending to push for more hate speech laws and an even further erosion of due process. That is, what matters to us isn't "integrity in gaming journalism", it is the fabricated threats by the "feminists" involved and their repeated calls for restrictions on speech.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Please go pleasure yourself with a scrub brush.

  • Rasilio||

    For all you guys saying GamerGate doesn't matter, Think back. You would have been saying the progressive takeover of academia didn't matter in the 1960's.

    This kind of progressive take over of institutions and instillation of groupthink is part of their long game and if we don't get a whole lot more movements like GamerGate then all the political victories in the world won't matter they are still going to take over everything.

  • The Laconic, in Technicolor!||

    What exactly is the mechanism for the takeover here? SJWs are going to control the industry by spending a bunch of money producing a bunch of games nobody wants to play?

  • Rasilio||

    No, they are going to destroy the industry by controling which games get produced.

    Video games, even ones with the right message are a problem for proggies because they are inherently dependent on the idea that you the player make an individual difference. Even in multi player games where teamwork is required each member of the team is an individual with a role to play instead of being the replaceable cog that proggies want them to view themselves as.

    This is also why they targeted the Science Fiction literary crowd. All those Space Opera's that encouraged the reader to see themselves as the hero saving the universe from the unimaginable evil had to be stopped and replaced with introspective navel gazing over whether your gender is fluid enough. So they took over the Hugo process, then they took over every single science fiction publisher but 1 and today science fiction is a dying literary form.

  • DJ1706||

    You haven't explained why it should be important to Libertarians if the video game industry is "destroyed" by anything other than government incursion.

    If the video game industry goes away because of in-fighting among gamers . . . so what? Lots of industries go away.

  • fish||

    Because others don't want to see the SJW faction prevail. Nobody here is calling for the assistance of the state on either side.

  • DJ1706||

    I didn't say anything about "calling for" the "assistance of the state."

    I asked about why Libertarian principle demands that the video game industry survive.

    If it dies because of private in-fighting, what Libertarian principle is at stake?

  • fish||

    No you said that we shouldn't care because, "why it should be important to Libertarians if the video game industry is "destroyed" by anything other than government incursion."

    That a group of thought controlling SJW types want to shut down an industry or turn it to their own ends interests me.

    And fortunately I'm wholly disinterested in your "libertarian thought" analysis.

  • DJ1706||

    "And fortunately I'm wholly disinterested in your "libertarian thought" analysis."

    And you say *I* "pretend" to be a Libertarian?

    You, personally, can think whatever you want about it.

    My question was about Libertarians should care about AS LIBERTARIANS, i.e., the principles of Libertarian thought -- not personal preferences.

    If you can think of a Libertarian principle which is threatened if the video game industry implodes on itself, please, let me know.

  • fish||

    You, personally, can think whatever you want about it.

    I will.

    Me identifying as a libertarian means that I'm completely free to ignore you and not respond to any of your silly questions.

  • DJ1706||

    I don't disagree. Yet, here you are.

  • MarkLastname||

    Seems ironic that you are complaining about why libertarians would care about this, but you yourself seem to care enormously that other people care about it. I don't think I've seen anyone around here be so militantly indifferent.

    And here's a thought: maybe some people suspect that, given the chance, SJWs will use the state to suppress the rights of others; they may not be doing it yet, but it's a behavioral pattern with them. Some would say that calling in bomb threats and lying to the police to get swat teams sent to the houses of people they don't like would constitute a violation of people's rights, but apparently in your mind we need to wait until people are actually getting arrested over twitter comments before libertarians are allowed to care. Oops, too late, people already have been arrested over twitter comments. No biggy though, I'm sure it won't get any worse.

  • ZardozSpeaksToYou||

    Which side used actual threats of violence? Bomb threats, no less?
    NAP anyone?

  • JPyrate||

    "If it dies because of private in-fighting, what Libertarian principle is at stake?"

    What you fail to see is that there is no infighting within the industry. The industry is being attacked by feminist, PC twitter mobs.

  • Rasilio||

    This isn't about the video game industry for libertarians.

    The SJW crowd are applying Orwellian techniques to remove peoples liberties by taking over institutions that control the culture and thereby controlling what sorts of thoughts and ideas are considered acceptable to people.

    Libertarians should have a position on this because we need to be actively opposing SJW's wherever and whenever possible

  • DJ1706||

    "This isn't about the video game industry for libertarians."

    It was what you seemed to care about most until now. That the industry could die was your primary argument.

    "The SJW crowd are applying Orwellian techniques to remove peoples liberties by taking over institutions that control the culture and thereby controlling what sorts of thoughts and ideas are considered acceptable to people."

    And what "Orwellian techniques" are those? YouTube channels? Blog posts?

    In what way, exactly, is it anything OTHER than free speech vs. free speech?

    Be specific.

  • Rasilio||

    You can drop the free speech cannard.

    No one has called for anti gamer gaters to be arrested for hate speech (the reverse however is not true).

    But tell me, how precisely does one engage in a battle of ideas in a free speech environment?

    Oh right YOU SPEAK OUT, you form groups of like minded people and organize and take action.

    In otherwords Gamergate is even by your own admission a perfectly legitimate way of engaging in a battle of ideas.

    Now for us libertarians the question becomes, do we have a dog in this fight. The answer is absolutely yes because the antigamer gate crowd of SJW's is inherently and virulently opposed to everything we claim to hold dear. Including free speech they are responsible for trigger warnings and hate speech codes and have actively called for legislation making the gamer gate movement a crime.

  • DJ1706||

    Yes, you do, you speak out. Never once did I say anyone shouldn't do that.

    What I did say is that there's no Libertarian principle at stake, so there's no Libertarian side. The GamerGaters do not take a Libertarian position. Neither does the other side. Both sides want the kind of games they want, and that's it. That's not principle. That's preference.

    And none of it matters. If the entire video game industry disappeared tonight, the world would be no different tomorrow. Most of the world wouldn't even notice it was gone.

  • Rasilio||

    As far as what Orwellian techniques.

    I already told you. YouTube channels and blog posts have nothing to do with it. They infiltrate and take over institutions that govern new thoughts and ideas being introduced into society. First it was Academia, then the news media, then the publishing industry, then Hollywood and television, video games were just next on the list. Once they get their foot in the door they use a combination of intimidation and cries for justice/pity to change the language that people think in. This is how in just a generation gay marriage went from being unthinkable to half the country thinking it should be a crime for a small business owner to refuse service to a gay couple's marriage.

  • DJ1706||

    "They infiltrate and take over institutions that govern new thoughts and ideas being introduced into society."

    Really.

    How have they "infiltrated and taken over" the video game industry?

  • Rasilio||

    Not yet.

    They are trying and that was the whole point of the gamergate movement.

    It may have started with an inaccurate rant from a jilted ex boyfriend but it became something much wider, a fight against the SJW takeover of the video game industry

  • DJ1706||

    By doing what? That, you haven't answered.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Can you answer my question with a question?

  • ZardozSpeaksToYou||

    OK, the GG side wants free markets to decide what games get produced. The SJW side uses bomb threats to help decide what games get produced.
    Capish?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Leave him alone. He can argue in circles all day.

  • GILMORE||

    See my comment above.

    the standard M.O. of these types is the very definition of "intellectual dishonesty". Constantly throw out rhetorical questions, then when someone actually responds, ignore the response and project the answer onto them (usually with another rhetorical question)

    its idiotic, but people get suckered by it all the time.

  • DJ1706||

    No question I asked was "rhetorical." He simply didn't answer.

    He said they were infiltrating. I asked how. He said they hadn't yet, but they're trying. I asked again, how. No answer.

  • DJ1706||

    There's no circle. I asked a question which hasn't been answered.

  • Rasilio||

    Actually I did answer your question.

    You are just too dishonest to admit it

  • MarkLastname||

    Do you still beat your wife?

  • MarkLastname||

    @DJ1706 that is. There I asked a question too, now I must be right.

  • Win Bear||

    SJWs are going to control the industry by spending a bunch of money producing a bunch of games nobody wants to play?

    No, they are trying to do so by controlling gaming-related media and by interfering with open and free discussion of games and feminism. They may push for "voluntary" self-imposed restrictions by the gaming industry and rating systems.

    Like Hollywood movies, producing games is a big business requiring huge investments; that's why those businesses are cautious and would likely assuage the SJWs to avoid bad press.

  • DJ1706||

    "You would have been saying the progressive takeover of academia didn't matter in the 1960's."

    Certainly would not have. Academia matters -- academia are the engines of knowledge and supposedly truth -- and there are plenty of Constitutional and free speech issues involved with that.

    Video games are toys, and what bloggers choose to say about toys is of no importance. And there are NO Constitutional issues involved.

  • Banjos||

    Video games have become a form of media like movies, television, and books. It's not simply just a toy. And having a group of people try to take over that form of media and kick those with opposing views out very much matters to libertarians and the freedom movement as a whole.

  • DJ1706||

    So, for some reason, we libertarians should be on one side of people who want to keep certain voices out of gaming, but not on the side of other people who want to keep certain voices out of gaming?

    Or are we on the side of free speech and free ideas freely competing?

  • Swiss Servator, Switzier!||

    Is this some sort of mix of Bo and Judge Napolitano?

  • DJ1706||

    Do you have answers to those questions?

  • fish||

    No it's somebody pretending to be a libertarian. Bo I believe isn't by his/her own admission.

  • DJ1706||

    What have I said that isn't consistently Libertarian?

  • fish||

    No it's somebody pretending to be a libertarian....or the worlds worst prosecuting attorney.

  • DJ1706||

    I ask again:

    What have I said that isn't consistently Libertarian?

  • Rasilio||

    Except the GamerGaters do not want to keep any voices out of gaming.

    They aren't saying no one should get to make games like Depression Quest or that no one should play them.

    Regardless of how the movement started what they are saying now is that the gaming media, especially when it comes to game reviews and awards needs to be an honest open book, not something controlled by a small cabal pushing a political agenda

  • DJ1706||

    "Except the GamerGaters do not want to keep any voices out of gaming."

    The HELL they don't.

    This is either a bald-faced lie, or astounding naivete.

    Why, here's the very first tweet which came up when I Googled:

    "Stop letting Anita Sarkeesian's Marxist feminism hijack the movement. Feminism is all about choice. #GamerGate "

  • Rasilio||

    Boy you're dumb. You can't even understand your own post.

    Stop letting Anita Sarkeesian's Marxist feminism hijack the movement. Feminism is all about choice

    There is absolutely nothing in that statement even tangentally related to gaming other than the fact that it contained the gamergate hashtag. That is a statement about FEMINISM being made by a FEMINIST gamergater trying to reclaim the FEMINIST movement from the marxists that have taken it over

  • Banjos||

    Definitely a concern troll. Not worth your time.

  • DJ1706||

    Really. What makes me a "concern troll"?

  • Banjos||

    1.) I don't recognize your handle so you're most likely new here AND

    2.) you started out by feigning ignorance "what does a dispute amongst silly toy makers have anything to do with libertarians and the first amendment rights" to knowing who Anita Sarkeesian is. Which tells me you know a lot about the subject and tried one tactic and failed and are now trying others.

  • DJ1706||

    1) I've been around a while.

    2) I didn't feign ignorance. I never once said I didn't know anything about it, and I have no idea how you think what I said equates to it. That's something you really want to read into it.

    In fact, my very first post, above, showed that I do know about it. Which is how I know how silly it is.

    And "failed"? When and where exactly did this "failure" occur?

  • fish||

    you started out by feigning ignorance "what does a dispute amongst silly toy makers have anything to do with libertarians and the first amendment rights" to knowing who Anita Sarkeesian is.

    But Google.....

  • Vulgar Madman||

    "What make me a concern troll?" Hahahaha

  • DJ1706||

    And what does Anita Sarkeesian blog about? Muscle cars? Gardening? Scrapbooking?

    And if it's not about "gaming," then why would the "#GamerGate" tag be appropriate?

    And no, that post isn't from a "Feminist" GamerGater; it's from a guy named "Chriss" who doesn't have an otherwise "feminist" post to his name other than a few sparse GamerGate tie-ins.

    But the point is, he wants Anita Sarkeesian silenced for what she says. And he's a big Gater.

    I'm still not sure if it's blatant dishonesty or naivete on your part.

  • Rasilio||

    Now show me where he called for Anita Sarkeesian to be silenced.

    Nothing in that post calls for her to be silenced. It specifically calls for people to oppose her, not silence her

  • Vulgar Madman||

    He can't show you. He's just going to keep on repeating himself.

  • DJ1706||

    How about when he was spreading a petition to get Sarkeesian removed from the Mirror's Edge 2 game development team?

    No, that's not silencing anyone.

  • fish||

    No, that's not silencing anyone.

    Much like campaigning to have developers deprived of funds because the games they develop haven't received the SJW seal of approval.

    Sarkeesian is free to cry in the wilderness all she wants....as a libertarian I thought you would understand that.

  • DJ1706||

    "Much like campaigning to have developers deprived of funds because the games they develop haven't received the SJW seal of approval."

    You're not denying that he attempted to silence her, and keep her voice out; you're just saying "they do it, too!"

    I never said I supported the other side. In fact, I've said several times that I see no reason to support either side.

    "Sarkeesian is free to cry in the wilderness all she wants....as a libertarian I thought you would understand that."

    Of course she is. But the claim was, there was no attempt to silence her. Trying to get her removed from game development is, INDEED, such an attempt.

    To say otherwise is just plain buffoonery.

  • fish||

    You're not denying that he attempted to silence her, and keep her voice out; you're just saying "they do it, too!"

    How did he attempt to silence her?

  • DJ1706||

    "How did he attempt to silence her?"

    I'll simply quote myself above, because apparently it was beyond you:

    "Of course she is. But the claim was, there was no attempt to silence her. Trying to get her removed from game development is, INDEED, such an attempt. To say otherwise is just plain buffoonery."

    ^^^^^

    Looks like you're going to go all-in with the buffoonery, then.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

  • fish||

    What did Anita Sarkeesian do on the Mirrors Edge 2 game development team?

  • DJ1706||

    No idea; doesn't matter.

    This is Rasilio's claim:

    "Except the GamerGaters do not want to keep any voices out of gaming."

    This is what Chriss said about the petition to remove her from the development team:

    "Non-#GamerGate petition for industry to recognise Anita does not speak for gamers now over 42,000 signees. "

    They obviously didn't want her "speaking" on the development team.

    Now, tell again me how they "do not want to keep any voices out of gaming."

  • fish||

    No idea; doesn't matter.

    It appears to matter a great deal to you who only a couple of hours ago couldn't fathom why "libertarians" a political philosophy that you yourself claim to hold, cared one way or the other.

    Why do you now care so much now about a silly industry?

    Why?

  • DJ1706||

    Oh, what's the matter; you couldn't spin that into "he wasn't trying to keep her voice out of gaming," because he very clearly and unequivocally was, so now you're trying to throw nonsense at me?

    What she did/does on the development team does NOT matter; what matters is that he (along with at least 42,000 others) tried to deny her a voice on that team, something Risilio claimed no one is trying to do.

    I don't give a shit about the industry; that's been part of my point all along. But those who argue to "win" rather than to argue a consistent point tend to lose sight of what the argument even is. Case in point: you.

  • fish||

    What she did/does on the development team does NOT matter; what matters is that he (along with at least 42,000 others) tried to deny her a voice on that team, something Risilio claimed no one is trying to do.

    Deny her a voice??

    It's not incumbent upon EA or anybody else to provide Anita Sarkeesian with a platform for speech. She was an employee. She has no game development experience. What on earth EA thought they were going to achieve by hiring her is beyond me but it wasn't game development.

    Anita can start a blog or write for Jezebel, or Gawker or someplace else more in line with her politics and "talents".

  • fish||

    From the petition:

    We the undersigned are presenting our names in solidarity against the decision of EA Games and DICE to include Anita Sarkeesian in any aspect of the game development of Mirror's Edge 2.

    Our reasoning follows as thus:

    Anita Sarkeesian has no credibility or experience in game development. She is merely a self proclaimed critic and her opinions should offer no sound foundations in the development of this or any game. She has no experience in the industry.

    Anita does not speak for gamers, female or otherwise, on the difficulty or appeal of games. She only offers personal insights catering to her own agenda. In fact, she went so far as to say that women needed a whole new "simplified" control set for this game, based on her personal experiences, passing them off as the opinion of the female gaming community.

    In the past, Anita has even spoken against her status as a gamer, only to rebut her stance to serve her own purposes.

    We are not against strong portrayls of women in video games, but believe that consultations on games should be given by more credible and experienced sources. We agree with Anita's right to voice her opinion on any subject matter she sees fit, however we do not agree with her input on a professional level and do not want to see the game we love influenced by ignorance.

    Sounds to me like they want her off the development team because, as somebody with no software development experience she's probably pretty fucking useless.

  • fish||

    Anitas bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

    Tell me again how she contributed to the development of Mirrors Edge 2.

    How, exactly? Be specific.

  • DJ1706||

    "we do not agree with her input on a professional level and do not want to see the game we love influenced by ignorance."

    Hmmmm.

    "Except the GamerGaters do not want to keep any voices out of gaming."

    Any voices. Any. Voices.

    Any. Voices.

    "Sounds to me like they want her off the development team because, as somebody with no software development experience she's probably pretty fucking useless."

    So? They want her out.

    You've shifted away from denial that anyone tries to silence her to "she shouldn't be there anyway."

    Buffoonery.

  • fish||

    She's free to spout off about anything she wants....not though in the context of game development. Those consumers of Mirrors Edge 2 are well within their rights to complain if someone with a political agenda changes the nature of the game.....remember they are the customers.

    Anita can whine about misogyny all she wants somewhere else.

  • DJ1706||

    "She's free to spout off about anything she wants....not though in the context of game development. "

    ?

    "Except the GamerGaters do not want to keep any voices out of gaming."

    !

    Heh. You're just going to keep stumbling into the wall, aren't you?

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • DesigNate||

    My god you are one insufferable twat.

  • DJ1706||

    Ah, embracing the buffoonery with gusto, then.

    Whether or not she should have been hired is ALSO irrelevant; if they did, they did. That's EA's business.

    Attempting to get her removed is an attempt to deny her a voice in the game's development. There's nothing else it could be. There's not even any other reason to try to do it.

    So yeah, indeed, they wanted to deny her a voice in gaming.

    Arguing otherwise is . . . well, I can't stop you from self-immolating even if I wanted to, and I don't, so I guess I'll just enjoy the show.

    Heh.

  • fish||

    Attempting to get her removed is an attempt to deny her a voice in the game's development. There's nothing else it could be. There's not even any other reason to try to do it.

    What did Anita Sarkeesian bring to the development of Mirrors edge 2? What was her "voice"?

    What, exactly? Be specific.

  • DJ1706||

    Oh, I'm sure she was there just to look pretty. Maybe water the plants.

    Teh.

  • fish||

    She was almost certainly there to buy EA some "good will" from the SJW community, "protection money" if you will. Again EA only needs to employ Anita while they think they are receiving that benefit. If she can't deliver....well I'm sure somebody is going to be shown the door.....or "denied a voice" using your choice of terms.

    If Anita was such a crack-a-lackin game developer why wasn't she scooped up by one of the many game development firms always on the hunt for new "voices"?

  • DJ1706||

    If she had no voice on the development team, as you are hilariously claiming in order to further hilariously claim that removing her wasn't denying her a voice . . .

    Then why did the petition cite her influence on the game as the reason she needed to be removed? Someone with no voice, and who isn't there to contribute, can't influence anything.

    Why did Chriss feel the need to make a point of saying that she doesn't speak for gamers? No voice, no speaking.

    Behold, fish, the human pretzel, contorting himself pretty much specifically for my personal amusement at this point.

  • fish||

    If she had no voice on the development team, as you are hilariously claiming in order to further hilariously claim that removing her wasn't denying her a voice . . .

    I'm not claiming anything.....I've asked you what she did for EA on the Mirrors Edge 2 development team. You have been unable to tell me. Because you've been unable to tell me you can't claim that she has been denied a "voice". Maybe EA paid Anita for her silence?

  • DJ1706||

    "I'm not claiming anything"

    Dude. I'd say you're insulting my intelligence, but you're really just insulting your own. I myself find your furrowed brow and attempts at "gotchas" quite amusing.

    In fact, you ARE claiming this:

    "Because you've been unable to tell me you can't claim that she has been denied a "voice""

    So, pretzel boy, I'll untwist your knickers:

    I already said it doesn't matter what she did. What matters is that Chriss and at least 42,000 other tried to get her removed so that her voice wouldn't be heard in gaming.

    They said so. These were their own stated goals.

    Yet, this was the claim that all of this is about:

    "Except the GamerGaters do not want to keep any voices out of gaming."

    So, yeah. Teh.

    Has it occurred to you yet that you yourself are now doing all the intellectually dishonest things that you and your various and sundry angry allies have been accusing ME of all day?

    Probably not; I don't see introspection as a strong suit of yours.

    Not going to worry about it, either; dinner plans. You've been a laugh-riot, so thanks for beclowing yourself. Made the afternoon pass a little faster.

    Toodles.

  • fish||

    Has it occurred to you yet that you yourself are now doing all the intellectually dishonest things that you and your various and sundry angry allies have been accusing ME of all day?

    I stand before you absolutely guilty of your charges.

    If only you hadn't been such a pedantic mendacious fuckwit all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.

    Toodles.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • fish||

    Arguing otherwise is . . . well, I can't stop you from self-immolating even if I wanted to, and I don't, so I guess I'll just enjoy the show.

    Heh.

    Yeah well enjoy your feminist dance therapy class tonight....make sure you tell all the other members what it is to be libertarian.

  • DJ1706||

    You poor thing. I didn't make you twist yourself up in knots. You did that entirely on your own.

  • fish||

    Tell me how Anita not remaining on the EA development team has silenced her? Understanding of course that if EA thought she was a benefit to the project she would likely still be there.

    Again, be specific.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • wwhorton||

    I'm so late to the party, but you're soooo wrong on this it's silly.

    Of course the petitioners didn't want her on the development team. She was there for much the same reason that kosher meat processing plants have rabbis on staff; to certify Mirror's Edge 2 as SJW-approved. GG folks took issue, and petitioned that she be removed from the team because a.) she lacks any software development experience, and b.) they were afraid she'd prioritize her agenda over good design decisions, which she absolutely would have done.

    The appropriate role for Sarkeesian, if there is one, would be as a consultant, where she might come in for a meeting or two to give her input on design. But even then, what exactly is her expertise? Is she an expert on women??? By virtue of what, exactly, would she be better able to advise a team of men and women on how to accurately portray a female character than, oh, any other woman or man who wasn't raised in a monastery?

    Obviously, this was a cynical attempt to appease the radfems and SJWs, and it backfired, and now people like you are here to be bitter. Sarkeesian can have whatever voice in gaming she wants, and game buyers, players, and developers are free to listen or not as they choose. Sorry, pal, but sometimes freedom means the freedom to ignore someone else's speech.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • fish||

    Answer the question.

    Again, be specific.

  • Rasilio||

    Oh I'm sorry, you havn't provided any evidence whatsoever that happened.

    You posted a tweet which mentioned nothing whatsoever about silencing anyone and claimed it was evidence of gamergaters attempting to silence someone.

    That said, attempting to get a specific individual removed from a particular role is not attempting to silence them and is entirely within his free speech rights as you admit yourself.

  • ZardozSpeaksToYou||

    Look at it through the NAP:
    One side (SJWs) used bomb threats.
    One side (GGers) did not.
    That makes it a libertarian issue right there.

  • fish||

    "Stop letting Anita Sarkeesian's Marxist feminism hijack the movement. Feminism is all about choice. #GamerGate "

    "But the point is, he wants Anita Sarkeesian silenced for what she says. And he's a big Gater."

    Where does he say wants Anita Sarkeesian silenced?

    Where?

    Where?

    Where?

    Where?

    Where?

    Where?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    It's in invisible patriarchal ink.

  • Brendan||

    You shut your mansplaining mouth! INK comes from A PEN, which is two letters away from PENIS and rhymes with MEN. Is there nothing the patriarchy won't steal for itself?

  • MarkLastname||

    "keep certain voices out of gaming"
    Ha, okay, so you don't know what you're talking about then.

  • Win Bear||

    Video games are toys, and what bloggers choose to say about toys is of no importance.

    Video games are extremely powerful and immersive media; they and the messages they communicate are far more important in the long run than books, movies, or television.

    And there are NO Constitutional issues involved.

    And that matters how? Libertarians tend to like the Constitution as originally written, but libertarianism isn't identical to strict constitutionalism.

  • Wlinden||

    Now wait for the left to give their usual "It didn't happen and they deserved it." Or "it was OBVIOUSLY a false flag operation", as they insisted about the torrent of threats against Memories Pizza.

  • John C. Randolph||

    What I've learned from this whole fracas is that Arthur Chu is leftard cunt.

    -jcr

  • BambiB||

    I hate... Arthur Chu.

  • Steven Rush||

    Being a man and being a feminist is like being an African-American and being a white supremacist.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netjob80.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netjob80.com

  • Brezey||

    Ahhh Cathy Cathy. Are you sure you're proGG?

    "... not been willing enough to disavow the creepier denizens of the "manosphere" who have been riding its coattails, from acolytes of pick-up artist guru Roosh V to weirdo ultra-reactionary blogger Vox Day. Unfortunately, any movement that takes on feminism—even feminism in its extreme forms—is likely to be a magnet for genuine misogynists."

    Why should GG disavow anybody? I, for one, am disgusted that you go around smearing some dudes you don't like as "genuine misogynists." Oh, so a dude who enjoys picking up women (presumably meeting chicks at clubs) is a hater of women? Wow, talk about man-hate. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you're the one being sexist and extreme here?

    This Roosh fella seems a lot more relevant to GG than you are. At least he isn't afraid to admit the toxicity of feminists and their attempts to subvert culture, while you play the artful dodger and try to paint the target exclusively on "extremist" feminism, refusing to acknowledge that most people don't see a difference.

    Why would you use the topic of GG to spread your own personal ideas about what you personally think feminism is, while insulting others who have different opinions about it? Your man-hate is shameful, Cathy.

  • drmom5||

    This paragraph has some problems: " I mentioned instances in which people involved in GamerGate—including women such as Lizzy Finnegan, who is no longer directly involved with GamerGate but is still sympathetic to the movement and who now writes for the gaming culture magazine The Escapist—were not only subjected to severe verbal abuse in the social media but had their personal information disclosed online. I also suggested that he talk to two other female journalists who have written fairly, though not uncritically, about GamerGate—TechRaptor's Georgina Young and Canadian feminist TV host and author Liana Kerzner.."

    Are you saying that Lizzy was abused in social media and doxxed? :-(

    The links to Liana Kerzner is actually another link to G. Young.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online