No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing.
You can now find this article at my new website here.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
Very well written. :) I think you got it all right, at least from what I understand. I think it all started (for a lot of us) out of a sense of unfairness. It was unfair how Eron was crucified, when he came out about being abused and cheated on by his girlfriend. It was unfair how all the games journalists - and then regular journalists - threw us under the bus. It was and still is unfair when people falsely call someone sexist or racist, just to attack and try to discredit that person. It was unjust, and gamergate was that frustration taking shape. Like you said, if people treated us fairly, and with dignity and respect, gamergate would not be a thing today.
Anyway, great article! I'm keen to check out that book. :)
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
Can't help but feel that the answers to your questions skew left because they also probably skew young. Where's the discussion on age? There had to be something there to talk about age.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
People are still trying explain Gamergate? Don't care.
I remember someone who claimed to speak for Gamergate explaining somewhere that people who thought that "Five Guys" group was a derogatory reference to the sex life of a certain female game developer were were all wrong. Okay, well, accepting that... and that's accepting a lot... don't you think they should have called it something else? And is the misunderstanding really the public's fault?
Does Gamergate stand for ANYTHING? Here's a passage from a popular Gamergate manifesto:
for an informed, free democratic society to function
and condemn all attempts to use disinformation, censorship and bullying to disrupt free discussion."
What the fuck does that mean? How can you reject censorship, and still demand to be protected from objectionable rhetoric? It makes no logical sense. Is this what you mean by "complex"? This sort of cognitive dissonance frightens me. It's like chairman Mao saying he believed in absolute freedom of speech "except for enemies of the people."
I remember someone who claimed to speak for Gamergate explaining somewhere that people who thought that "Five Guys" group was a derogatory reference to the sex life of a certain female game developer were were all wrong. Okay, well, accepting that... and that's accepting a lot... don't you think they should have called it something else? And is the misunderstanding really the public's fault?
Does Gamergate stand for ANYTHING? Here's a passage from a popular Gamergate manifesto:
evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217525
"We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire."
"We believe that the free flow of ideas and information is necessaryfor an informed, free democratic society to function
and condemn all attempts to use disinformation, censorship and bullying to disrupt free discussion."
What the fuck does that mean? How can you reject censorship, and still demand to be protected from objectionable rhetoric? It makes no logical sense. Is this what you mean by "complex"? This sort of cognitive dissonance frightens me. It's like chairman Mao saying he believed in absolute freedom of speech "except for enemies of the people."
What I know about Gamergate is that it's opaque and incomprehensible because it's constructed to be opaque and incomprehensible. It's not my responsibility to comprehend Gamergate. If Gamergate wants to say something, it's Gamergate's responsibility to have a comprehensible message. It doesn't matter if they're Trump supporters or Sanders supporters. It doesn't matter whether the majority are engaging in bad behavior, or if they're merely providing cover to a malevolent minority. I'm absolutely convinced that if every group with a grievance adopted their approach, the internet would become a nightmare world of crazy intrigue and revenge.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
"I remember someone who claimed to speak for Gamergate explaining somewhere that people who thought that "Five Guys" group was a derogatory reference to the sex life of a certain female game developer were were all wrong. Okay, well, accepting that... and that's accepting a lot... don't you think they should have called it something else? And is the misunderstanding really the public's fault?"
edit: I seem to have misunderstood: are you referring to that paper mario scene which Zoe Quinn recently lost her shit about? Because that was so clearly not a GG reference...
""We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire."
"We believe that the free flow of ideas and information is necessary
for an informed, free democratic society to function
and condemn all attempts to use disinformation, censorship and bullying to disrupt free discussion."
What the fuck does that mean? How can you reject censorship, and still demand to be protected from objectionable rhetoric?"
Good question. Let's start here: if someone is for free speech, they are against censorship. So how do they stop someone who is trying to enact censorship by way of speech?
Simple: argue against them. Call them out and expose their lies. GamerGate believes that people who want to twist an art form for their own political benefit should be called out and exposed for the frauds and ideologues they are. If they hide behind bullshit arguments, destroy them with logic and reason. This is hardly being "protected from objectionable rhetoric". Notice that we are not interested in censoring SJWs; we will not lie about their positions, and we will by no means bully them, except with the truth. We will simply speak the truth as often as is necessary. This can be seen by how we act; GamerGate routinely debates opponents and its main sub, discussed here, KIA, will not ban you for expressing any of the views you expressed, or even views far more severe.
"It makes no logical sense. Is this what you mean by "complex"? This sort of cognitive dissonance frightens me. It's like chairman Mao saying he believed in absolute freedom of speech "except for enemies of the people."
There's nothing cognitively dissonant about using your free speech to disagree with others, while pointing out that certain things are attitudinally anti-free speech and therefore not things we should do, even if free speech laws allow them.
"What I know about Gamergate is that it's opaque and incomprehensible because it's constructed to be opaque and incomprehensible. It's not my responsibility to comprehend Gamergate. If Gamergate wants to say something, it's Gamergate's responsibility to have a comprehensible message. It doesn't matter if they're Trump supporters or Sanders supporters. It doesn't matter whether the majority are engaging in bad behavior, or if they're merely providing cover to a malevolent minority. I'm absolutely convinced that if every group with a grievance adopted their approach, the internet would become a nightmare world of crazy intrigue and revenge."
The "malevolent minority" is intensely miniscule, and constantly called out and/or acted upon. This is not true in any other group you can describe. If you want to understand GamerGate, here it is:
GamerGate is against people hijacking video games to insert their own personal agendas, be they political or social. GamerGate wants artists to be able to freely do their thing, offend our sensibilities and even be tasteless; this even includes artists making works that insert their own personal agenda, so long as they are doing so of their own free volition. GamerGate is against dishonest media who spread lies and will not respond to counter-arguments, and GamerGate is for honesty and transparency in video games journalism and indeed all types of journalism. GamerGate is pro free speech in every way, even if the speech offends or hurts their members, because if the ideas are wrong then they can always be shown to be after being spoken.
edit: I seem to have misunderstood: are you referring to that paper mario scene which Zoe Quinn recently lost her shit about? Because that was so clearly not a GG reference...
""We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire."
"We believe that the free flow of ideas and information is necessary
for an informed, free democratic society to function
and condemn all attempts to use disinformation, censorship and bullying to disrupt free discussion."
What the fuck does that mean? How can you reject censorship, and still demand to be protected from objectionable rhetoric?"
Good question. Let's start here: if someone is for free speech, they are against censorship. So how do they stop someone who is trying to enact censorship by way of speech?
Simple: argue against them. Call them out and expose their lies. GamerGate believes that people who want to twist an art form for their own political benefit should be called out and exposed for the frauds and ideologues they are. If they hide behind bullshit arguments, destroy them with logic and reason. This is hardly being "protected from objectionable rhetoric". Notice that we are not interested in censoring SJWs; we will not lie about their positions, and we will by no means bully them, except with the truth. We will simply speak the truth as often as is necessary. This can be seen by how we act; GamerGate routinely debates opponents and its main sub, discussed here, KIA, will not ban you for expressing any of the views you expressed, or even views far more severe.
"It makes no logical sense. Is this what you mean by "complex"? This sort of cognitive dissonance frightens me. It's like chairman Mao saying he believed in absolute freedom of speech "except for enemies of the people."
There's nothing cognitively dissonant about using your free speech to disagree with others, while pointing out that certain things are attitudinally anti-free speech and therefore not things we should do, even if free speech laws allow them.
"What I know about Gamergate is that it's opaque and incomprehensible because it's constructed to be opaque and incomprehensible. It's not my responsibility to comprehend Gamergate. If Gamergate wants to say something, it's Gamergate's responsibility to have a comprehensible message. It doesn't matter if they're Trump supporters or Sanders supporters. It doesn't matter whether the majority are engaging in bad behavior, or if they're merely providing cover to a malevolent minority. I'm absolutely convinced that if every group with a grievance adopted their approach, the internet would become a nightmare world of crazy intrigue and revenge."
The "malevolent minority" is intensely miniscule, and constantly called out and/or acted upon. This is not true in any other group you can describe. If you want to understand GamerGate, here it is:
GamerGate is against people hijacking video games to insert their own personal agendas, be they political or social. GamerGate wants artists to be able to freely do their thing, offend our sensibilities and even be tasteless; this even includes artists making works that insert their own personal agenda, so long as they are doing so of their own free volition. GamerGate is against dishonest media who spread lies and will not respond to counter-arguments, and GamerGate is for honesty and transparency in video games journalism and indeed all types of journalism. GamerGate is pro free speech in every way, even if the speech offends or hurts their members, because if the ideas are wrong then they can always be shown to be after being spoken.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
If you don't care... maybe don't click on an article that has Gamergate right in the title? As for your anti-Gamergate rant, well, I guess I'm like you - I don't really care. My article's intention was only to refute the notion that it is a right wing movement. If you want to get into the particulars of this movement - which you don't care about - then wait for my book :).
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
I might actually be interested in your book. I'm going to read your article again, more carefully to make up my mind.
So tell me, if I may change the subject for a moment, do you find this idea that free speech can be a form of censorship as worrying as I do? I call your attention to this quote, from a previous respondent.:
"Saying they condemn the use of free speech to censor the speech of others is a *far* cry from saying they want to be 'protected'."
"The use of free speech to censor the speech of others."
I think this idea is used as the rationale for all kinds of vile shenanigans, and I see it expressed again and again. If I make a video criticizing games, I'm seen as censoring games, and actions taken to suppress and intimidate me into silence can be rationalized as opposition to censorship, when it's far closer to censorship itself. This isn't speculation on my part, it actually happens all the time. It's written into the manifesto, and when you try to point out the contradiction, apologists just don't see it. That's pretty disturbing.
I care very much about a generation not understanding the nature of freedom and responsibility. Whether they're Democrats or Republicans is minutiae.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
If you make a fair and reasonably constructed argument in your video criticizing video games, you're not likely to be seen as censoring games. If you take individual scenes, paint an invalid picture of the game as a whole, then claim that the games are brainwashing people to be horrible individuals in the real world and those games should no longer be made, or should be altered, to suit your perspective, then yes, you'll be accused of calling for censorship.
And even then, the response is going to be a range of rabid insanity to respectful, if strong, disagreement. How many times GG supporters had to repeat they condemn harassment and particularly doxing while being told such tactics were okay to used against them because "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" was a bit staggering.
There are a slew of popular Internet personalities who criticize games, game makers, publishers, marketing departments, and writers. It's when you present information not in good faith that you tend to raise the ire of people who are defending their hobby.
Also, I'm unaware of any GG manifesto, despite following it since week one. As a leaderless movement, there was nobody put in charge of drawing up a charter. I never saw a charter submitted for votes of approval. There are no membership dues. Any manifesto is just a collection of proposed ideas that the writer thinks, and some where it's posted may agree, are the focal points.
But as Mr. Glasgow said, GamerGate certainly has its share of differing opinions and squabbling factions. I'd almost feel safe to say there aren't too many left, though. Most who cling to it as an identity now are the more extreme. Those who were using it as a conversation marker have largely moved on, having felt most of their interests were met with updated ethics policies and SPJ Airplay and now occasionally laugh at some of the more extreme types. They aren't active, but I'm sure many are still paying attention.
And even then, the response is going to be a range of rabid insanity to respectful, if strong, disagreement. How many times GG supporters had to repeat they condemn harassment and particularly doxing while being told such tactics were okay to used against them because "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" was a bit staggering.
There are a slew of popular Internet personalities who criticize games, game makers, publishers, marketing departments, and writers. It's when you present information not in good faith that you tend to raise the ire of people who are defending their hobby.
Also, I'm unaware of any GG manifesto, despite following it since week one. As a leaderless movement, there was nobody put in charge of drawing up a charter. I never saw a charter submitted for votes of approval. There are no membership dues. Any manifesto is just a collection of proposed ideas that the writer thinks, and some where it's posted may agree, are the focal points.
But as Mr. Glasgow said, GamerGate certainly has its share of differing opinions and squabbling factions. I'd almost feel safe to say there aren't too many left, though. Most who cling to it as an identity now are the more extreme. Those who were using it as a conversation marker have largely moved on, having felt most of their interests were met with updated ethics policies and SPJ Airplay and now occasionally laugh at some of the more extreme types. They aren't active, but I'm sure many are still paying attention.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
How are those two quotes contradictory? They both boil down to the same thing: Censorship is bad. Nowhere in there do they say they want to be "protected from objectionable rhetoric". Saying they condemn the use of free speech to censor the speech of others is a *far* cry from saying they want to be "protected".
Honestly, the only thing confusing here is your post. Not really sure what you're even getting at with the "Five fun guys" thing. That whole thing was stupid. It was quite clearly just a pun on the word "fungi".
Honestly, the only thing confusing here is your post. Not really sure what you're even getting at with the "Five fun guys" thing. That whole thing was stupid. It was quite clearly just a pun on the word "fungi".
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
"The use of free speech to censor the speech of others" ???
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
FREE SPEECH IS CENSORSHIP
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
"The use of free speech to censor the speech of others" ???
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
FREE SPEECH IS CENSORSHIP
I'm curious, Rebuskniebus. How would you feel if I was saying "Driving on a street...that's a racist act, because your white cars are oppressing the black asphalt! Rise up, and give your keys unto me whereupon I shall cast them into the brimstone and fire!" And then you came along and disagreed, and so I scream at you, calling you a horrible racist, as all your friends come walking along?
Don't you think that this would have a deeply chilling effect on your free speech? Maybe you aren't being censored through a censorship mechanism, but rather you are being censored through cultural and emotional mechanisms.
And so I would call that guy out for being dishonest and having ridiculous arguments. I would try to convince people that he was crazy, full of shit, or so forth. That's what GamerGate does.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
FREE SPEECH IS CENSORSHIP
I'm curious, Rebuskniebus. How would you feel if I was saying "Driving on a street...that's a racist act, because your white cars are oppressing the black asphalt! Rise up, and give your keys unto me whereupon I shall cast them into the brimstone and fire!" And then you came along and disagreed, and so I scream at you, calling you a horrible racist, as all your friends come walking along?
Don't you think that this would have a deeply chilling effect on your free speech? Maybe you aren't being censored through a censorship mechanism, but rather you are being censored through cultural and emotional mechanisms.
And so I would call that guy out for being dishonest and having ridiculous arguments. I would try to convince people that he was crazy, full of shit, or so forth. That's what GamerGate does.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
>> Maybe you aren't being censored through a censorship mechanism, but rather you are being censored through cultural and emotional mechanisms.
There's a name for these emotional and cultural censorship mechanisms. They're called THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.
There's a name for these emotional and cultural censorship mechanisms. They're called THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
Do I really need to call this guy out for having a ridiculous argument? I don't know about your friends, by my friends will probably be intelligent enough to know that driving a white car isn't racist. No real intervention is called for. The marketplace of ideas is supposed to be self-regulating. When you try to regulate the marketplace of ideas, that's when real censorship occurs.
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
"and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric"
is a "far cry" from calling for protection from objectionable rhetoric? Seriously?
No, Gamergate is Not Right Wing. You can now find this article at my new website here.
What's missing is the wider context: GamerGate is just one episode in the conflict between the Critical Race Theory proponents socialized on Tumblr (so-called social justice warriors) and their many opponents. However, they don't believe in the academical but vulgar variant that is often contradictory and which most believers have assumed through comment section osmosis. Here's a quick breakdown, where it occurred:
2009 – Race Fail 09 – Fiction Writing
2011 – Elevatorgate – Atheism
2014 – GamerGate – Video Games
2015 – Unnamed – US Campus movement
It should be no surprise that these conflicts tend to be between people and communities in close proximity, such as nerd-geek fandom and video games. SJW want to be seen "fighting the good fight" by their peers, who must be close-by. Not only do they want to dogpile a target and assert moral superiority in numbers, they also want to be seen and gain SJ points and hugs from their community for bravely fighting Evil Incarnate. If criticism emerges, they run to their safe spaces: and if that's not possible (because Twitter is a network of nodes, not a comment section), they engineer and rationalitze reason why criticising their action is evil. And this is one function of smearing. By potraying their opponents as Far Opposite, they can make their "fight" seem more relevant, and they themselves appear as more heroic.
It is a sort of Selfie Activism of people who live online and who are (search) history aware. They want to look good in the rear mirror of history some day, since they feel how people now look back at their parents generation with a critical eye. Just like a good selfie, such activism is meant to make someone more popular and relevant; to matter more. Such people may be anti-social with an angst that they are disposable and irrelevant in the wide, populated social media internet. They want to stick out, which gives rise to the Special Snowflake syndrome. Etc.
Ideological, they are offshoots of the anti-enlightenment, anti-humanistic tradition of the Academical Left, notably that of postmodern theory. This tradition is known to characterize whoever is against them as burgois, right wing, conservative etc even if they are themselves progressives or left. It was the case between Frankfurt School vs Popper et al (1960s). It was the case between Andrew Ross vs Alan Sokal et al (ca. 1990s) and likewise it's again the case.
However, caution. "Culture War" is a framing that such people want. But it's not between left and right, as shown. There is also no such thing as "Cultural Marxism", which is the name for a conspiracy theory. It's true though that Frankfurt School, and with it Marx and Freudian ideas influenced Left Academia, and then postmodernism. And this tradition is decidedly opposed to Enlightenment values, liberalism, rationality etc. and has (in this case) little to do with capitalism.
SJWs are capitalistic and establishment as it can get, since their viral tactics are often in service of brands, of the type that advertise with the help of Upworthy etc.
Like others, I'm left and feminist myself, but more of the type as Sokal or Chomsky on the empirical side. And I doubt that SJWs are very left wing. It might seem as such, by declaration, but their authoritarianism, concern with safety ("safe spaces"); concepts that allude to racial purity ("cultural appropriation"); a type of 1950s comics code attitude; and more don't seem very left to me.
2009 – Race Fail 09 – Fiction Writing
2011 – Elevatorgate – Atheism
2014 – GamerGate – Video Games
2015 – Unnamed – US Campus movement
It should be no surprise that these conflicts tend to be between people and communities in close proximity, such as nerd-geek fandom and video games. SJW want to be seen "fighting the good fight" by their peers, who must be close-by. Not only do they want to dogpile a target and assert moral superiority in numbers, they also want to be seen and gain SJ points and hugs from their community for bravely fighting Evil Incarnate. If criticism emerges, they run to their safe spaces: and if that's not possible (because Twitter is a network of nodes, not a comment section), they engineer and rationalitze reason why criticising their action is evil. And this is one function of smearing. By potraying their opponents as Far Opposite, they can make their "fight" seem more relevant, and they themselves appear as more heroic.
It is a sort of Selfie Activism of people who live online and who are (search) history aware. They want to look good in the rear mirror of history some day, since they feel how people now look back at their parents generation with a critical eye. Just like a good selfie, such activism is meant to make someone more popular and relevant; to matter more. Such people may be anti-social with an angst that they are disposable and irrelevant in the wide, populated social media internet. They want to stick out, which gives rise to the Special Snowflake syndrome. Etc.
Ideological, they are offshoots of the anti-enlightenment, anti-humanistic tradition of the Academical Left, notably that of postmodern theory. This tradition is known to characterize whoever is against them as burgois, right wing, conservative etc even if they are themselves progressives or left. It was the case between Frankfurt School vs Popper et al (1960s). It was the case between Andrew Ross vs Alan Sokal et al (ca. 1990s) and likewise it's again the case.
However, caution. "Culture War" is a framing that such people want. But it's not between left and right, as shown. There is also no such thing as "Cultural Marxism", which is the name for a conspiracy theory. It's true though that Frankfurt School, and with it Marx and Freudian ideas influenced Left Academia, and then postmodernism. And this tradition is decidedly opposed to Enlightenment values, liberalism, rationality etc. and has (in this case) little to do with capitalism.
SJWs are capitalistic and establishment as it can get, since their viral tactics are often in service of brands, of the type that advertise with the help of Upworthy etc.
Like others, I'm left and feminist myself, but more of the type as Sokal or Chomsky on the empirical side. And I doubt that SJWs are very left wing. It might seem as such, by declaration, but their authoritarianism, concern with safety ("safe spaces"); concepts that allude to racial purity ("cultural appropriation"); a type of 1950s comics code attitude; and more don't seem very left to me.