Gamergate has survived to the New Year

So what does that mean in real terms?

Well, the hashtag is still being used and there is still a core of people identifying with gamergate.

So as to identify, where we are, it has to be in context of both where we have come from and what we faced.

How long have “Progressives” (Hereon named Social Justice Warrior) been in the Gaming industry? That is a bit of a “How long is a piece of string?” type question. No, idea. Nor could I hope to know. What I can say is that from within the communities around gaming, it became increasingly clear that many people were Social Justice Warriors OR supportive of such people. A few in the gaming press were happy to write a few articles to shore up ideological positions and signal to the SJW populace, then the ideological push was ripe to begin.

It was ready and ripe to push aggressively into the gaming community. A nice little test run was Atheism community. No real cash benefit but a great test run before the push into the multi-billion dollar industry. There are such similarities that are so very blatantly obvious between the gaming and the Atheism push from SJWs. The modus operandi is close enough to identical. (No seriously, the “don’t mind us, we are just here and think that your space should also be about Feminism and feminist and Social Justice Warrior sensibilities. No? Well actually, we now INSIST on you being predominately driven by our ideology and if you do not hold our precise views, you are misogynistic, sexist, racist, homophobes and we will bring in media and look to take whatever means to censor, ban, expose, shame, humiliate and co-opt your space. I think you better join us”. Elevatorgate/Quinnspiracy, PZMeyers/Anita, Rebecca Watson/Zoe Quinn)

Hey they were well prepared an had media megaphones at the ready and with Quinnspiracy went Hell for leather. This was their push and they went hard. They wanted to take a 70 Billion dollar industry for what they could. They wanted to sink the claws in as deep as they could. Then they ran into a brick wall called gamergate.

But the stage was set. One one side was a Social Justice Warrior contingent. A large swathe of Social Justice Warrior gaming outlets (backed by the cousins in mainstream media), The IDGA and various large boards and think tanks and public relation companies and conventions and Indie funding corporations and developers….and on the other a small handful of mainly independent developers and a couple of youtubers and a stack of gamers.

They should have rolled us. They poisoned the well rather well. We were literally overnight all a bunch of misogynist, sexist, homophobic basement dwelling neckbearded cisgendered white males. They in one day had 30+ articles telling us so and in came the Social Justice Warriors to “finish us off”.

But we held them. Gamergate did not move nor buckle. We countered their assault and gave away little. They had only lies and inference and we hit them with gotcha moment after gotcha moment. Not that gotcha moments are necessarily going to sink your opponent. Exposing lies to their side that does not care, and your side that was aligned to you in the first place, does not strengthen your cause BUT it takes away THEIR ability to smear without being checked with the truth.

Throughout this drama the Blockbot queen (Randi), The I hate video games but I’ve been a lifelong fan (Anita), Zoe “Its all about me and always will be about me. Please keep talking about me”Quinn and Brianna “I abuse myself on my steam account and make and screen capture a 1 sec old tweet of a sockpuppet account of my dying dog because…reasons” Wu, have attached themselves like flies on shit to Gamergate. Why? Because by doing so they monetise their oppression. They need only to fall onto their virtual fainting couches and say “I got so much hate tweet and it absolutely came from Gamergate and it is actual violence like a physical assault and therefore I need money. Money they got. Sympathetic Feminist Women trying to bolster these brave women who seemed to poke the bear they supposedly feared whenever attention on them dwindled. In fact for some of them receiving $3000-4000+ per month AND convention circuit fees, this was an actual livelihood. The empowerment of being a victim.

But the push started becoming a little more desperate. The allusions to Social Justice Warrior game success and marketplace acceptance could only be falsified for a short time. The “Social Justice Warrior Indie Cabal”, in the same way they could give a non-gamer and non-industry figure Anita, an Ambassador award, they COULD give awards and great reviews for really bad Indie games. IF the gaming industry could just be tricked into thinking these games had worth and that the  awards meant anything, the gaming public might be tricked into accepting sub-par indie games.

Unfortunately, the Social Justice Warrior games marketplace did not back the allusion. Things started going wrong. Gamergate was pushing back hard enough that by petitioning against the Social Justice Warrior media, they started costing millions of dollars. Worst still, they were able to counter many of the Social Justice Warrior thrusts (such  as the attempt to petition to ban Adam Baldwin from Supernova). Some independents crossed the floor to gamergate. Gamergate meetings being evacuated due to bomb threats did not look good for the narrative. Sunset (an independent Social Justice Warrior game) going bankrupt was an eye-opener as to the lack of marketplace. (In fact many Social Justice Warriors started dropping the pretense that THEY could make Social Justice Warrior commercially successful games and DEMANDED that successful developers make the Social Justice Warrior games for them – at THEIR risk and expense and without any support from the demander).

A year down the track and many battles later, the anti-Gamergate league tried a desperate push. But at this stage they were out of gas. Their force and credibility was restricted, their  nails clipped and the headlines that were so cutting edge a year ago were not newsworthy now. Besides now they had the FTC on their backs in respect to their inability to be ethical. They had poisoned the wells well, but they were unable to sink their claws in and no ability to sustain their push forward.

Gamergate too suffered. There were people bailing quicker than we could replace. Crappy moderate Gamergate allies took great effort to tone police, nanny and PC police their allies whilst looking for compromises and defence of the other side. Some too went very extreme on conspiratorial on anyone in their midst being too SJW for them. More became split between ethics only or SJW invasion only OR Left vs Right. Ally vs Ally.

So where they started is where they are now. So if both sides are, after all of this, stalemate to where they are a year ago, who is the winner in this situation? For all the efforts of thousands on both sides, if neither side made any real ground, who won?

Gamergate did (has). That is right. Gamergate was there to resist the push into their space and they did. Sure they were branded unfairly as misogynists but no biggie, they have been branded before. The co-opting of this juicy, resource rich space, was nullified. The incursions and the industry’s adoption of Social Justice Warrior values and Social Justice Warrior gameplay did not eventuate.

So what of the big names on the other side that I mentioned? Anita has lost stacks of followers and whilst Feminist Frequency earns  good deal of cash, her star is falling and she seems to be re-branding. Zoe is perhaps the big winner. She monopolised her victimisation into a memoir and a possible screenplay (possible in the “unlikely to ever happen” due to the likelihood of being sued), Randi at her peak – two months ago, reach $5200.month on Patreon and has since dropped to $4500/month. Brianna Wu cannot help but shoot herself in the foot to the point of toelessness.

Gamergate itself? I think the days of mass action and mass campaign and cohesiveness are behind us. We are going to be a somewhat activist/watchdog/provocateur mob keeping the other side honest.  We did enough though and we kept them at bay. Their effort after the success at Atheist spaces, proved to be a failure.

This year we can be very proud of what we did and where we came from and why. Long live Gamergate



So I sent this to the IGF Head Honcho

Hope you may do me the benefit of reading what I write

I have some concerns about your want to “take back the Tech”. My concern is not that you want to “take it back”. The internet is an open platform and does not belong to anyone but rather everyone. So you are not taking it away from one group and back to another. It is a “misnomer”.

What does concern me is a number of things:

1) Online violence. What exactly do you mean? What is online violence? As a man who is opinionated and forthright, I have been disagreed with, argued with, shouted at, insulted, threatened, sexually harassed, doxed and even stalked. It is typical fair. I must say that the last two DID shake me up a little but the rest is just another day online. What is the definition of violence in this. I was not harmed or hurt. The doxing did freak me out a little and the stalking was creepy. But the rest is simply disembodied words on the screen. I know where the off button is.
2) How is this a woman issue? Is it not an issue that affects men and women? If someone is trying to upset someone online, they have very few ways to upset you. Generally all they have is words. If they know you are a man, good way to get at you is to make gendered insults and shaming language. “You are a virgin”, ” You have a small dick”, “You are gay” or “you can’t get it up”. If you are a woman they may call you a slut or threaten you with rape. Then of course are the body shaming insults which are fired at both men and women. Women and men get called fat but men also get the skinny and wimpy pronouncements as well. Of course the old and young thing. Then there is the race thing, which is pretty easy fare, for an obnoxious person to do. So, again, and with respect, how is this a race issue.
3) All platforms have security. If I start getting people piling onto me, (it does happen) I have agency. I am not an infant. I can choose to put up with it until they go away. I can fight back (my normal option). I can make use of the platforms own blocking/muting/protection measures OR I can turn the computer off and have a walk or go out for a while to clear my head. If things got super bad, I guess I could call the police or if not THAT bad, contact the web service and ask the platform to ban the perpetrator. I do not NEED another option.
4) How do we deal with bigotry individually if it is all censored and banned? Free Speech is free speech for everyone. My Father was a bigot. He was not a nice man. I grew up where racial insults were the “natural way” of talking about people and every racial ethnicity had particular negative stereotypes that were standard. I shared these learned behaviours. I saw people from a young age as the sum of the colour of their skin or what country they came from. But by the time I was 11 or 12 I had realised the other boys and girls in my year were not as my Father had been saying and it had been a slow realisation. I was embarrassed and mortified. My bigotry stopped. His did not but I was not responsible for his thoughts or his ugly personality.
IF I was not shown both examples how could I have judged? I am grateful that I was exposed to both mindsets to know which was right and which was wrong.
You do not protect people’s right to free speech by taking away others.
5) Who minds the minders? If there is to be decisions made to censor or restrict the internet who should have the power to make the rules, interpret the rules and execute the rules and who gets to correct them if they get it wrong?
If you were to say to me “Ross, we are taking away online violence against women” I would not support it. NOT because I am a misogynist (the default for many online to claim), but because I have NO idea what that would mean. To YOU it may mean rape doxing. To someone else it may mean rape threats. Someone else it may mean saying “You suck” or “you are a loser”. To someone else being told to “drop dead” may suffice. To someone else it may be simply retweeting an insult. Where do the people that make and enforce the rules draw the line? I do not know and neither do you. I do know that the more enforced it is, the more censorous the space becomes. This is not good. Never is.
6) Build better mice and the mice get smarter. I used to go on a forum that became more and more “safe”. The rules were heavily enforced. You know what happened? It became a toxic place of superficial happiness and all the nastiness done on secret private messages or off site and a lot of the nastiness online was passive-aggressive. Enough plausible deniability to be able to say “Oh I never meant that to be taken THAT way”. It was toxic.
If that is not a bad enough image, the trolls get trickier. They come back again and again for sport. Seeing how long that they can last.
7) When was it that women could not handle themselves or people being mean? It will come as not news to you that there are men and women online that are horrible people. Many women and men online are horrible and sometimes sexist to men and women. We are saying that women have not the emotional stoicism to dismiss or wipe their feet on such behaviour?
I am a single Father of a teenage daughter. I love my daughter very much. I want to wrap my daughter in cotton wool. I want good things for her in life and to save her from bad thoughts and heart break and bad choices. I can’t though and I would not if I could. I will give her the weight of my values and experiences and and my support and love and she will have the agency and self-determination to do it on her own. She is not oppressed or a victim. Her decisions and her choices she will take responsibility for.
She does not have to fall to pieces because someone says something nasty at school or online. There are always bad people and censoring people will not change this.

8) The danger of echochambers. I am grouchy and opinionated. Much in the way of many middle aged men, I guess. I do not really like people telling me what I want to hear. I want many views. I want to hear the views and agree, disagree, learn, teach, and evolve. Echochambers where everyone is surrounded by people who share the same blocklist or all belong in a safe space or a ideological driven grouping, is sterile. What is there to share? You all agree and what is worse, you better or you will be kicked out. That is sterile and intellectually indefensible.
Let’s say that you are a “Flat Earther”, IF you refuse to entertain any other view and stay in your group of 10 others, talking about how flat the Earth is and how round earth believers are the real crazy people, you do yourself a disservice in not listening to opinions you do not trust or believe.
Swap Flat Earth with “Truther”, Feminist, Atheist. Christian, Conservative, Liberal or whatever ideology you wish. The benefit in transparency and open channels of communication far outweigh any benefit in censorship.

I could possibly keep going but please consider what I said and the spirit of concern in which I have said it. Free Speech can not be used in the positive in any speech which promotes censorship or restricting the internet.

You, no doubt, are a learned woman and understand that “free speech for me and not for thee” MUST be staunchly defended against regardless whether the “me” is women, or “feminists” or “middle class” or a religion or whomever. Why?

We CANNOT allow this kind of thinking and the Animal Farm mentality of Orwell creep in or even worse the 1984 narratives.

As I say, I believe you are a learned women and can tell why this is INHERENTLY flawed.

Happy to discuss this privately or publicly.



We NEED to play by the “rules”….What? No we don’t.

I can not tell you how much it shits me that “moderates” in Gamergate (whether it is the Feminist moderates like Cult of Vivian or the Reddit mods of Kotakuinaction – trying desperately to make sure no offense is seen) try to  “nanny” us and tell us that we have to be “better” than the opposition and not “sink to their level” or be “as bad as them”.

I don’t know about you, but when I hear those words, what I hear is “they can do whatever they like but we have to play with a hand behind our back. We have to take their slings and arrows and not give back.”

Furthermore (Do NOT tell me yo have not seen this) but when we are righteously enraged and firing salvos back at these disgusting creatures, our own moderates WILL tone police or play morality police with us. Watch it happening. A disgusting pedophile will start lying or misrepresenting us and we will have the temerity to give them shit back and misgender them as a level of disrespect and the WE will get ATTACKED by OUR OWN SIDE.

Wrap your head around this. Why? Because moderates have decided in their vacuous heads, that you can make an omelette without cracking eggs. That if the other side acts without any moral check and with impunity that we are necessarily stymied. They would RATHER their own compatriots taking unanswered hit after hit without retaliation if we are seen as responding in a way that could be seen as “unprofessional”, “not nice”, “immature”, or whatever. Being the moral guardians and adjudicators of fair play, they see fit to criticise their own allies whilst ignoring the actions of their opponents.


I hope that last phrase is understandable. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

The reason these Progressive pieces of shit get ANY traction is being “moderate” people give them the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone with a brain in their heads knows the answer to these issues. College kids rants and protest and scream obscenities at a Professor and demand this and that and claim that the Professor has no place at the University. What should have happened the next day is a letter should have been sent to the student concerned saying that they were identified as bringing the University into disrupted and the University decided that they were unsuited to the University culture or environment and their tenure was terminated immediately. Any further access to courses or entry to the grounds would involve police prosecution.

We know that this was NOT the reaction. Because this is not the reaction, we see more and more craziness as students dictate what the university and staff should teach and act and conduct themselves. Sorry kids, but how about go fuck yourselves?

I want to see more Eron Gjoni cases, where rabid Feminists are called into account for their lies. I want to see more Honey Badgers vs Mary Sue and Calgary expo and more Gregory Elliott.I want the rest of society to be exposed an  to wake up and smell the stench of this pervasive Progressive authoritarian gangrene in society. I want those attacked to push back and take these arseholes out.

I want them exposed, shamed, ruined, and discredited. I do not think that there is ANY need for US to be the nice guys in this and history proves if we are nice, they will misrepresent or outright lie about us and if anyone, in any way associated (no matter how tenuously) does ANYTHING that could be at all construed as bad, then ALL of Gamergate is somehow of EXACTLY the same motive, intent, morality, understanding……FUCK IT! Fuck them. I am about past caring. They want to accuse us of being this that or the other? We will cop the accusation regardless. Gloves off, why endorse nice. Why not be the arseholes they have accused us of being for the last 14-15 months? Honestly, why not?

Turn that mirror

Isn’t it funny when something you know generally to be wrong is so articulated so simply and beautifully? I am no fan of Dinesh D’Souza. But …..damn! He does such a beautiful job here.

The setting is a talk at a university. The antagonists are upper middle class, Progressive, young adults, that are attending a prestigious college. Entitled brats who believe in the superiority of their intellect and morality….as if the Progressives (aka social justice warriors) come any other way.

Their spokesperson, Tommy, is as articulate as he is ideologically driven, and as weaselly as he is hypocritical. All done in the least offensive way as can condescendingly be achieved (and why not, he is morally and intellectually superior and smugly so).

It was beautiful. What was even better is that he saw Dinesh coming and Dinesh did not alter course or disguise his approach. He boxed him in and ran straight over the top of Tommy.

Dinesh’s premise on a superficial level is kind of awesome. IF you advocate against various supposed inequities and that people of a certain class, gender, race, sexual preference or what have you, possess AND YOU possess that, you must be prepared to sacrifice the benefits you gain from such privilege. Otherwise you are a hypocrite and your words are hot air.

That is a sensible result of logic. If you are Tommy and whining about the fact that white people in America benefit from the history of African American slave ownership, and that there is a measurable monetary inequity and a social inequity, AND that HE as a white person gets privilege, then surely he is advocating that he is in possession of illicit benefits. IF he is and he sees this inequity and he advocates against it, then there is NO point him impressing the evil of this retaining of benefits without HIM FIRST giving up HIS benefits.

Tommy can’t see this. Tommy likes to tell others what to do and mitigate for others without risking his own.

But here is the kicker. Isn’t that Social Justice Warriors all over? Think about EVERY Male SJW you have seen? IF they believe they are at the top of the heap and acknowledge that they are more privileged and well off and are recipients of all of this benefit, why do they not make like the hippies, give away the social and material benefits they have? Give it to the blacks, gays, women, transgendered, and disabled? Wouldn’t that make them REAL Progressives? By not, are they simply being hypocrites? Aren’t they JUST like Tommy?

What about the all too common upper middle class, well educated, white Feminist Progressive female? Are they commenting on Poor women? Black Women? Are they no better than their White Male counterparts? I mean they too, surely are part of the same social benefits and by the same rationale, the crimes of their ancestors can be visited on them too. Also their social capital is side effect of their ancestors’ decisions. So are THEY going to give up their money, income, positions of power, influence or place in society?

What about Gay and Non-gay Progressives or Transgender and cisgendered Progressives? Why do the former think they can raise these issues and act like spokespeople without being disadvantaged and on BEHALF OF Gays and of Transgendered?

Hey don’t point fingers at me. I did not make these rules, but IF I have to play by them, I am game.