#problematic and pernicious aspects

[dndspellgifs]

I say this as a LOTR fan but like, Tolkien racism apologists, what are we doing here? Like, an author can have progressive ideas and be egalitarian and still be a product of his time.

"Oh, he didn't mean to make such an East-West dichotomy, it's just that Melkor's original strongholds in the North sank under the sea–" girl fuck off.

The most prominent adjective he uses to telegraph to the audience that a person is of the enemy is "swarthy", a word with such negative connotations, it took me years to find out it just meant dark-skinned.

[vanilla-voyeur]

Kinda a tell that folks who believe in "toxic masculinity" don't consider male expendability one form of it. It is still widely unquestioned, even in feminist circles, that a "good" man is one who is willing to lay down his life to protect the women around him.

[snekdood]

idg ppl who say they "hate rap" because theres so much different types of rap out there? im almost always able to find something they can enjoy bc it's not so much a genre as it is a style of music in general

[sirfrogsworth]

I am reminded of when Anita Sarkeesian started doing her videos she would preface them with this quote...

"It's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects."

Yet people still gave her so much shit for pointing out bothersome things in media. They thought she hated the things they loved. They couldn't wrap their head around the fact that she actually loved much of the media she was critiquing--just as many of them did.

But I always thought that was an important message. It's okay to enjoy things and have misgivings about aspects of those things. Because humans are imperfect and we make imperfect things.

Yet dweebs like Ben would lambast commentary about things being "problematic" and tell people to just enjoy the movie without any further thought.

But now conservatives are so hyper focused on things being "woke" that it has literally impeded their enjoyment. They are unable to set aside the things they don't like.

I see old boomers complaining on my home theater forums that there are no good movies or shows anymore. Meanwhile I feel overwhelmed because I have a list of over a hundred things I have yet to watch. I am drowning in amazing entertainment and literally cannot keep up.

If they keep going like this they aren't going to have any movies or tv shows or music or video games. They aren't going to have any place to eat. No beer to drink.

They are woke-ing themselves into a mundane existence.

[justenjoythegossip]

THE MIDDLE VOICE OR ANOTHER KIND OF PAID PLANTS/TROLLS

It has been widely discussed how trolls/plants are used in a PR strategy to drive certain narratives. Social platforms such as Tumblr, LSA and so forth are the perfect place to reach a core fandom, which is why they are infiltrated by so many noisy agitators who take as many shapes or forms to cover every profile that could be needed to manipulate fans. 

As for Chris and the PR strategy used, it has been pretty apparent that such tactics have been and are still being used to this day. And sidenote , let’s not forget that Chris’ appearance at the Con in NY a few months ago was sponsored by… none other than Tumblr.

The middle voice: their positioning, role, sneakier tactics and more pernicious strategy

In such PR tactics, you do need shippers and haters that are well represented by Team Real & Team PR blogs, there to instigate anger and division and to keep people engaged and drive traffic. They are the loud over-the-top extremist voices. But you do need a voice in the middle, people who are way more measured and that tend to represent a more reasonable voice and opinion. 

They are the most difficult ones to spot but they are the most important because they are the ones that are driving people to the place that the PR strategy is trying to reach by the end.

The strategy they use is far more interesting that the one used by their counterparts from “Team” Blogs because it is far more complex, insidious and subtle as they tend to navigate much murkier waters. 

They also tend to go back and forth, confusing people as to where they stand on this relationship. 

Their end goal and the tools they use

What they are trying to do is to get people excited for all of Chris’ new projects (films, voice work) or any types of old/new content (content you should be grateful for, I should add) while mitigating the very problematic stuff, trivializing it, turning it into a joke, which (I suspect) is supposed to make the fans come to terms with who Abba is, what she stands for and to slowly accept Chris and Abba’s kinda “union”. They are basically clearing the way for people to accept this very disheartening situation. Once it becomes normalized, it is more likely to be accepted by his fandom. Time which is such an essential aspect in a PR strategy works in their favor. 

One of the most important tool they use to that effect is try to make Chris look more accessible and relatable. And to that effect, they will discuss profusely the kind of bland food he loves, what he likes to wear , what kind of music he loves, his super minty breath, or fan favorite Dodger… Of course, it is not abnormal for fans/mods to discuss such topics. What is suspicious however is the amount of it in such a very short time period. The timing just before the con is also probably not coincidental. Since it doesn’t look very organic and it’s a little over-the-top, it is very likely staged and manufactured. And as we know, his team has been desperate in their advertising his Con in Seattle. We even have a couple of Medium articles to show for it.

Another topic they bring up constantly in a very inorganic way is how hot Chris is. His looks during the Gray Man premiere were brought up a lot recently and certain mods were so keen on pointing out the fact that he was not wearing any underwear. Isn’t he sexy? Are you still thirsting after him? Are you distracted? What a nice and silly diversion, isn’t? Does it make it make you want to turn a blind eye on the fact that Chris compromised himself irreparably by kinda “marrying” a fat-shaming, racist, antisemitic, white supremacist, Nazi sympathizing troll and by doing so has agreed to clean her image? Chris has aligned himself with the same type of people he used to criticize so vehemently on Twitter, a social platform on which he used to be so vocal and where he no longer has an account. Because, you know hypocrisy and performative political activism!

I want to make it quite clear that I am not criticizing anyone for still thirsting after him. People have a right to want to hold on to their fantasies. Or to their dreams. It’s not only not harming anyone, but also it is quite healthy. And we all need that. And it is really great to see fans be genuinely excited to see and meet Chris at the Con. He is lucky to be able to bring happiness to people, it’s gift that I hope he feels grateful for. What I am trying to denounce here is the underhanded, disingenuous tactics of using people’s fantasy to sweep the very problematic stuff under the rug. 

The “middle voice”: Profile and their more varied tones 

Some of those mods share the same kind of profile. They are allegedly insiders and work in the industry or are industry-adjacent. Talking about all kinds of stuff happening in the movie industry is a nice distraction indeed and more importantly it provides them with some much needed credibility. Also, it enables them to breadcrumb and troll about Chris’ upcoming projects.  

But the trolling doesn’t stop there and extend to all sorts of topics. The ring was heavily discussed last night and I already wrote my thoughts on the subject if people want to check it out… https://www.tumblr.com/justenjoythegossip/743785475697967104/reposting-because-of-course-he-was-wearing-his?source=share

Why would you post an alleged anon ask saying he doesn’t wear the ring without any proof? Isn’t the purpose to get people to tune in and get all excited? (It’s very similar to the trolling they did with the sight of Chris’ doppelganger by the way.)

Why would you find it hilarious (😂emojis anyone?) that he is seen wearing the ring at the Con after Chris, Abba and their team breadcrumbed a possible separation? If you are truly a fan of his, you shouldn’t make light of this unseemly union. The optics are absolutely atrocious on EVERY front. 

When it comes to their tone, it’s much more varied than the one used by their Team Blog counterparts. It can be similar in the sense that they can be arrogant as they talk down as they answer anon asks. They sometimes lecture them, criticize them for not being able to let go of the Nazism (which is actually quite healthy in my opinion) or gaslight them. But sometimes, their tone can be quite sweet. Or overly sweet, I should say.  

Those mods also work as a Team and tend to mostly interact with one another, which can be quite helpful in spotting and recognizing them. And sometimes they will be attacked or pick a fight with someone from their counterparts from Team PR blogs. When Majorscammer attacks you and questions your credibility (Public releases anyone?), it either means that you are speaking words or truth, which poses a threat to their little shenanigans and you need to be discredited or it means… that you are a colleague there to feed the discourse. 

Between the noisy and the quieter agitators, the fandom is as toxic as ever and it is closely mirroring this shitshow: a chaotic mess!

The very suspicious discrediting of classic PR tactics

Another aspect that is quite interesting, a mod who works in PR tried to discredit the nasty tactics used in a PR strategy by saying it doesn’t exist or is very rarely used, which seems kind of odd when you are working in that field. (I am paraphrasing but…) They insisted that their work mostly consisted in writing statements and that mods who were coming up with those convoluted theories had quite the vivid imagination.

And yet, haters, shippers and so forth are frequently used on SM in a PR strategy and there is quite a lot of literature on the subject. The mind games and cheap tricks are not only very real but quite nasty. So why try to discredit what we all know exists? Isn’t it gaslighting at its finest?  

Funny sidenote regarding Team PR blogs, their silence and usual distractions…

Team PR blogs have been rather silent after Chris’ appearance at the Con with his ring. Sure they still talk about the precious and about the staged and badly manufactured Lisbon pics from last week as the usual distraction. Repetitive much? It seems like we are stuck in Groundhog Day. But they obviously have to take the loss, or appear like they do since they sold the lie that Chris and Abba were close to be over, that Abba was the one who photoshopped the pics and leaked them to troll, that Chris was mad about it and is this innocent victim in their latest silly stunt. They lied. But more importantly they knew they were lying. But no worries, they will be back at it tomorrow and self-congratulate themselves for being so perspicacious. 

[onecornerface]

The "epistemic effects" argument for drug decriminalization

One of the many under-theorized & under-investigated arguments for drug decriminalization (of possession + use, at least most obviously) is what I might call an "Epistemic Effects" argument. Prohibition causes or exacerbates many bad epistemic effects, pertaining to drugs, drug users, and drug problems. Decriminalization would eliminate or reduce some of these bad epistemic effects, and/or have good epistemic effects.

I have a bunch of ideas for what may plausibly be among drug prohibition's bad epistemic effects. Here are some:

People are broadly secretive about their illegal drug use or drug problems (more so than their legal drug use or legal drug problems, even though the latter often are badly stigmatized & silenced as well). This is for various direct reasons pertaining to criminalization itself (e.g. fear of arrest), as well as indirectly a subset of aspects of social stigma and institutional discrimination (e.g. threat of loss of job or housing) that are caused or exacerbated by criminalization.

And to the extent that people *do* discuss their illegal drug use, this discussion is largely cloistered within subcommunities, and doesn't filter out to the broader public as much as it could.

Moreover, people who are *more* at-risk of arrest or discrimination (such as poor and nonwhite people) are likely less inclined to talk openly about their illegal drug use-- and/or less likely to see their perspectives about drugs filter into the mainstream-- compared to people who are *less* at-risk of arrest or severe discrimination. As a result, it is likely that we have less knowledge or understanding (and more false beliefs and misunderstandings) about (say) poor and/or nonwhite people's illegal drug use than about wealthy and/or white people's illegal drug use.

Illegal drug use is under-studied. It is often hard to acquire drugs to provide to research participants, and it is often hard to ensure honesty from all research participants about their illegal drug use (e.g. social-desirability bias). A disproportionate amount of drug research takes place in a context of prohibitionist institutions and individuals-- introducing various likely distortions to the scientific research's goals, choice of research questions, methods, interpretive framework, funding incentives, etc.

(It is often alleged by critics that the research by academics who are pro-decrim (or pro-safe-supply, pro-harm-reduction, etc.) is problematically biased toward their own beliefs and agendas. I agree this is often true [albeit in a different and more complicated way than is alleged]-- which I agree is bad and needs to be taken into account. But the implicit comparative assumption seems to be that most other drug research is unbiased. I disagree. I think large swaths of drug research are patently highly biased toward prohibitionism, in various overt and/or subtle, direct and/or indirect, ways.)

More broadly, drug prohibition tends to create and exacerbate an apparatus of drug-related (and often anti-drug-user) stereotypes, propaganda, oversimplifications, exaggerations, heuristics, and omissions, in a self-reinforcing feedback loop with anti-drug-user policies and practices.

Are some anti-drug-user stereotypes sort of true? Sure, maybe. Some of them seem plausibly sort of true. But which ones are indeed true or true-ish, and to what degree, and how confident may we be? What may we do on such basis? Notably, we have lots of higher-order evidence that they are part of a broader apparatus of stereotypes which is basically pernicious in origin and social-political function-- i.e. it has been designed, by intelligent design and/or by cultural evolution (etc.), to produce and promote anti-drug-user and/or pro-status-quo and/or prohibitionist ideology, etc. So we can predict that likely a lot of popular anti-drug-user stereotypes would be exaggerated or distorted, which should lead us to reduce our credence in the stereotypes in many cases.

(If you go in for moral encroachment (cf. Rami Basu) or suchlike, then take that into account too. But arguably moral encroachment is dubious or hard to apply (cf. Georgi Gardiner). (I need to read more philosophy of stereotypes.)

Relatedly, I also claim (and argue at some length in my notes, not yet posted) that some common rationales or aspects of drug prohibition, such as institutional paternalism, tend to exacerbate epistemic hazards (e.g. encourage oversimplifed views about the agency and experiences of those who are subjected to coercion)-- possibly, in part, to reduce the cognitive dissonance necessary to coerce lots of people on such prima facie dubious grounds and in such prima facie abusive ways.

Drug prohibition is also in a mutually reinforcing feedback loop with interlocking systems of oppression, such as classism, racism, sexism, and ableism, among others. Each of these, individually and together, introduce or exacerbate further epistemic hazards (cf. feminist social epistemology, Mills "Epistemologies of Ignorance," Stanley on ideology and propaganda, Kerwin Kaye on the effects of racist-classist tropes on drug court & rehab practice, etc.).

In short, prohibition (or many aspects thereof) creates many epistemic hazards-- factors that make people in general less likely to acquire or cultivate epistemic goods, such as knowledge and understanding, about drugs and drug-related topics. This produces widespread ignorance and error not only about (say) drugs and their pharmacology, but *also* about people who use drugs-- how they use drugs, *why* they use drugs, what it's *like* to use drugs, how the drugs relate (positively, neutrally, negatively) to the rest of their lives and projects and communities, etc.

This all contributes to continual bad policy epistemology, as well as epistemic injustice against drug users (and distinctive epistemic injustice against some subsets of drug users, such as those who are poor, black, disabled, etc.).

Decriminalizing drug use (or possession, which is a proxy for use) may help reduce some of these epistemic hazards, improving the state of public knowledge and discourse about drugs and drug users, and thus drug policy. At least, this is highly plausible, and merits further inquiry, philosophically and empirically.

Are my empirical claims here true? Some are sloppier armchair inferences than others. But plausibly, some of them are true or close to true. Arguably, there ought to be more research to investigate this. In countries, states, and provinces that have implemented de jure decriminalization (or de facto decrim, or decrim-adjacent policies), does the epistemic situation improve? If so, how much, and in what ways?

Normatively, if the empirical claim is largely true, is this argument sufficient by itself? Probably not. It may prove too much, unless further work is done.

Consider the following. (Note: mostly serious main point, but slightly more armchair-bullshitting on my part via the too-lackadaisical bizarre hypothetical): Quite possibly, if we were to legalize murder, then we would learn a lot more about why people commit murder, help people to speak more openly about their murdering, and improve the scientific study of murder and related issues in sociology and criminology. There is a lot of very strong anti-murder bias in our society, and this may well contribute to our having distorted beliefs about murder and the people who commit murder. Perhaps we are prone to misrepresent or oversimplify the reasons people commit murder. ...However, all this, even if true, is obviously not a sufficient reason to legalize murder. The reasons against legalizing murder are vastly stronger.

So, the Epistemic Effects argument for drug decriminalization must piggyback on the force of at least some other background arguments for decriminalizing drug use (arguments which would apply to drug use but not, say, murder). But in any case, the Epistemic Effects argument, I suspect, points to a plausible and important strand of benefits of decriminalization or related policy changes, which may help reduce epistemic injustice, improve policy epistemology going forward, etc.

[ambrose123four]

from the vault: Benton Quest and Race Bannon

What with the new Jonny Quest comics coming out - I'll be going through my archive of the original "gay dads" - Dr Benton Quest and his son's bodyguard Roger 'Race' Bannon.

The original TV show (from 1964) is definitely a product of its time when it comes to portrayals of any non-white races (much like other adventure stories before it, such as Doc Savage); and definitely the homoerotic reading of this original property comes mainly from it being a world seemingly without women (in the original 26 episodes, there are only 17 women that appear onscreen ). It's a case where I "simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects.” ― Anita Sarkeesian

With the problematic aspects being set aside (as I could honestly go on and on but other people will do it much better than me), it's hard to deny that people with homosexual attraction saw a bit of what could be with the dynamic between Doctor Benton Quest and his bodyguard Race Bannon ("could we one day be a two father household with kids?"). Or just found the characters hot. I have spoken to men of a certain age who do pinpoint these characters as early tv crushes. One of my favourite posts about this was found when madly looking up anything about this show, a blog entry called Race Bannon Made Me Gay. My first images are simple but also make sure to check out the butterflies' wings, as I've places some hints at some head-cannons for them (or possibly less head-cannon and more my own idea for if I were to do a reboot of the series...I will see how many get explored in the comics).

[hoarding-niffler]

I think a lot of these Hogwarts Legacy haters need to re-learn what “it's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects” means because damn.

They also need to learn that scapegoating instead of addressing the real issues isn't helping anyone. It basically just divides people, everyone is a self-appointed gatekeeper and people feel unsafe opening up. GG.

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

I'm gonna be real I also have concerns about any level of moderation on AO3 just because I think if they give a concession to certain groups they might feel the need to make concessions to others and I'm pro problematic gay porn and pro dark fic, but AO3 did make a promise so like... you know... this is different because they made a promise in 2020. Like that's where my line is. AO3 was never supposed to be a platform that could feel good about every fic they host, it was built to be a den of anarchy, but one that you could specify your preferences on and hopefully avoid things you don't like with. It was always gonna host fic that I find distasteful and occasionally even harmful and I would like to continue posting about anal sex somewhere on the internet without ads and algorithms so I was willing to live with the pernicious aspects simply because I can't think of a better way to do it. But then AO3 made their little statement that said they were going to clean it up and so they should do that. Like if AO3 thinks they can do it without compromising the original mission of hosting the smut and whump and dark fic no where else will allow, then do it.

[the-deamus-kid]

“It's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects.” -Anita Sarkeesian

people complaining that any critique of a thing they like ruins it for them is such a skill issue. personally i can spend 10 hours a day critiquing the things i like and still enjoy them passionately and wholeheartedly

[richardsondavis]

This post will NOT cover everything that took place in GamerGate. That simply isn't possible here. GamerGate wasn't one drama, it was many small and large events that unfolded and built upon each other over a period of years, and took place in every part of the internet at once. My aim here is to lay out the key figures, and give a general understanding of what happened and why. There are resources linked throughout the post which can expand on events I mentioned, but there are many more that I left out.

Come with me as we explore the dark corridors of the internet that gave birth to the modern alt-right. I'm going to try and keep this gaming related, because this isn't a political discussion board, but references to greater political movements are unavoidable.

Be warned, this post contains basically every ism and phobia that you could possible imagine. Tread with care.

Also, when I refer to 'gamers' with a lowercase G, I just mean normal gamers as a whole. When I say 'Gamers', I mean Gamergate supporters.

Anita Sarkeesian - Sexism in Gaming

This shitstorm began in 2013, though its roots trace back far earlier, and while it would come to suck in thousands of pundits, politicians and thinkers from around the world, it began with one woman: Anita Sarkeesian.

Anita is a Canadian-American media critic. She started her Youtube Channel Feminist Frequency in 2009, analysing portrayals of women in pop culture. In 2011 she worked with feminist magazine Bitch to create a series of videos titled 'Tropes vs Women', which examined the damaging cliches and stereotypes against women in film and tv. It did pretty well, but she was still a small voice in a small circle. The natural next step was to talk about games, and that's what she did in 2012. 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games' criticised the sexualisation of women in games, the way they are treated as helpless damsels in distress, or given to the player as a reward. As Sarkeesian herself points out in her first episode:

"It's both possible and necessary to simultaneously enjoy media, while also being critical of its problematic or pernicious aspects'.

The videos were pretty even handed, and never really took the 'rabid angry feminist' tone that people have come to portray. I recommend taking a look. Anita was clearly not much of a 'gamer' herself, but she saw the positives that could be drawn from them.

In order to fund the project, Anita created a Kickstarter - which was all the rage back then. The kickstarter drew attention from every corner. Some of it was positive - she asked for $6000, but ended up with almost 7000 backers and $160,000 pledged. However a lot of it was bad.

Keep in mind that this all took place at a very critical moment in the feminist movement. Tumblr and Twitter were at their height, and a lot of positive momentum was being made. The video game industry was gradually becoming more inclusive too. Games at the time were - to much controversy - including more POC, women, and LGBT characters. But at the same time, a push began against this. A lot of men were feeling alienated by the rapid change, and this negative stance on feminism tended to look past the majority (who were pretty reasonable) and focus only on the minority of feminists who were explicitly anti-male. And in time, the progressive community would make the same mistake with gamers. But for now, it was these anti-feminists who saw the premise of Sarkeesian's videos as a threat toward 'their territory' - the male oriented video game industry. Anita became the poster child for everything these men hated. There was a coordinated effort on 4chan to destroy her Kickstarter, to DDOS the site, to report her twitter accounts, and otherwise eliminate her. It got pretty nasty. At the time it was a bit of a shocker just how nasty it got, but little did we know it was just the start.

A number of articles started to surface on various sites documenting the bizarre outrage, and that only lent it more momentum. Kotaku, Polygon, and other more left-leaning gaming news sites headed the exposure.

Anita received enormous harassment on social media, including vast numbers of rape and death threats, and she was doxxed multiple times (a practice in which a person's home address is posted online). Her wikipedia articles were vandalised with racial and sexual slurs, and she was sent drawings of herself being raped. A video game was created, 'Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian', in which players cover a photo of her in blood by clicking on it. Critics who disparaged the 'game' received death threats themselves. The creator of the game, Gregory Alan Elliot, was taken to court. The case had significant implications for online freedom of speech in Canada. She was accused of being Jewish, and received enormous amounts of antisemitism dubbing her Jewkeesian, until it came to light that her heritage was actually Armenian - and the harassment switched to an Armenian theme without skipping a beat.

Anita capitalised on her infamy, and used it to speak out on sexual harassment at TEDxWomen, as well as several universities. She was scheduled to speak at the 2014 Game Developer's Choice Awards, and would receive an accolade herself, but an anonymous bomb threat was called in to try and get the event cancelled. It really is hard to overstate the sheer level of vitriol this woman had thrown at her. But she would not be the only one.

"I don't get to publicly express sadness or rage or exhaustion or anxiety or depression, I can't say that sometimes the harassment really gets to me, or conversely that the harassment has become so normal that sometimes I don't feel anything at all. I don't get to express feelings of fear or how tiring it is to be constantly vigilant of my physical or digital surroundings. How I don't go to certain events because I don't feel safe. Or how I sit in the more secluded areas of coffee shops and restaurants so the least amount of people can recognise me."

Zoe Quinn - Ethics in Journalism

Zoe Quinn is an American video game developer and writer. In 2013, she released the game 'Depression Quest', a text-based game in which the player roleplays as themselves and is taken through a number of scenarios relating to depression. The game was based on her own experiences, and was received positively by critics. It's a raw and heartfelt project, and I really recommend it. However, there was a contingent who insisted that Depression Quest couldn't really be called a game, and it's true that it blurred the lines between a book, a visual novel, and a game.

This began a broad - and still ongoing - conversation within the gaming community. What is a game? People tried to come up with a clear cut definition, but there was always something that fell outside it. Does it need a failure state? That rules out Animal Crossing, which is definitely a game. Does it need an end point? That rules out Tetris. Does it need violence? Does it need characters? Does it need interactivity? Does it need choice? Does it need goals? Does it need visuals or sound? It's easy to look at most games and say 'yes, that's a game'. It's easy to look at a book or film and say it isn't. But when projects approach the line, things get a bit confusing. There are those who looked at Depression Quest and saw a book with extra steps, and there are those who insisted it was a game, but with all the extraneous stuff taken away. This is a massive philosophical debate, but we're here for drama, so let's move on. All you need to know is - it got great reviews, and some players were unhappy.

Zoe was added to the list of persona non grata. She received her own wave of death and rape threats, but rather than backing away, she documented them and spoke out about them to the media. This earned her even more hatred, which steadily grew more and more intense, to the point where she fled her home out of fear for her own safety.

But it wasn't until August 2014 that 'GamerGate' as we know it would officially begin. And it started at the hands of a relative unknown name, even now. Zoe's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni published a long and sprawling blog post about their relationship in which he levelled a number of accusations against her, the most inflammatory of which was that she had been given positive coverage (of Depression Quest, among other things) by a Kotaku journalist with whom she was sexually involved. This was a false accusation. It later came out that this journalist, Nathan Grayson, had barely ever mentioned Quinn or her work, and when he did, they hadn't been together. But never let the truth get in the way of a good story. The letter included copies of chat logs, text messages, and emails, and for all the world appeared to be legit.

The Gamers in question accused Zoe of exchanging sexual favours for positive press and professional advancement in what they called the 'Quinnspiracy'. Of course, Zoe Quinn stood to gain nothing from the praise Depression Quest received. Contrary to the claims that she was using her status as a woman to gain money... the game was free. And always had been. But this spawned one 'debate' which would go on to define GamerGate - that of ethics in game journalism. Video game press came under enormous scrutiny, especially the left-leaning Kotaku. The idea was that if a pundit/reviewer/critic was left leaning, their views could not be relied upon, because according to GamerGate, they were biased. Large lists were created to map out the various 'SJW Journalists', which boiled down to a blacklist of public figures who spoke out against GamerGate.

But for Zoe, it just meant abuse.

A lot of this began on 4chan - because of course it did - and users leapt at the chance to renew their attacks on Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest. Adam Baldwin (yes that one) coined the term GamerGate on Twitter, and his followers sent it trending. GamerGate gradually developed into a movement which would viciously attack anyone it saw as a target, and had its base in 4chan and Reddit.

Within four months of the blog post, Quinn's record of threats had exceeded a thousand. Around that time she is quoted as saying:

"I used to go to game events and feel like I was going home [...] Now it's just like... are any of the people I'm currently in the room with ones that said they wanted to beat me to death?".

I would go into detail on the exact content of these threats but frankly, I don't want to. All you need to know is that they contain the worst possible things that some very creative people could come up with. Quinn's Tumblr, Dropbox and Skype accounts were hacked, and she once again fled to live with friends. Everyone even tangentially connected to her got showered with hatred. It was a full on witch hunt.

In a BBC interview, Zoe summed up her experience.

"To me, GamerGate will always be glorified revenge porn by my angry ex. Before it had a name, it was nothing but trying to get me to kill myself, trying to hurt me, going after my family. GamerGate will always be that to me. There was no mention of ethics in journalism at all, besides making the same accusation everybody makes toward any successful women, that clearly she got to where she is because she had sex with someone".

EDIT: There was a section here in which I covered the Alec Holowka scandal in 2019, but commenters pointed out that it isn't really relevant to GamerGate, and I agree with them, so I removed it.

Brianna Wu - Taking Action

Wu is an American video game developer and the founder of Giant Spacekat, a small game studio. In October 2014, she began monitoring 8chan (think 4chan's even worse cousin), and began tweeting about GamerGate, ridiculing them for:

"...fighting an apocalyptic future where women are 8 percent of programmers and not 3 percent".

In the process, she placed herself in the sights of the mob. Anonymous details about her, including her address, were leaked on 8chan, and of course she got the standard death and rape threats, and had to flee her home. If this seems like it's becoming a pattern, that's because it is. The pattern would repeat itself over and over going forward. A minor figure speaks out about something, right wingers try to shut them up with abuse, they use that abuse to increase their platform (thereby becoming a minor left wing celebrity), they become an even bigger target, and they soon end up plastered across the internet.

But to the fury of many Gamers everywhere, none of these women were backing down. In February 2015, Wu declared:

"By attacking me so viciously, they're helping give me the visibility to usher in the very game industry they're terrified about".

Wu created a legal defence fund for women targeted by GamerGate, offered cash for information leading to the prosecution of its worst members, and became heavily involved with the FBI. She exclusively attended events with a security detail. As of today, she and her husband continue to live under aliases.

In 2017, the FBI closed their investigation and declined to prosecute any of the men who sent threats (even though two had confessed). Wu went to the media, campaigning for dedicated FBI agents who understand and monitor the dark corners of the internet like 8chan.

While Wu, Sarkeesian and Quinn would become the three horsewomen of the GamerGate apocalypse, they were not alone. Other women who became major targets include Jenni Goodchild, Liana Kerzner, Devi Ever, Leigh Alexander, Felicia Day, and more. It simply isn't possible to cover every single victim of this movement.

At the time, most people who played video games had no idea this was even going on. And often it was getting swept up in generalisations that turned regular gamers into Gamers. There were those who felt like they were being unfairly portrayed as sexist/racist/whatever else, and responded indignantly. This became heavily involved with the #notallmen and #yesallmen movements (and then #notallgamers). But sometimes those generalisations were right. There was a lot of anger going around in general.

Vivian James - Politics in Gaming

Of course, to the 4channer, the ideal woman doesn't exist. She has to be created. And so Vivian was born. Vivian James (chosen because it sounds like Video Games) was created as a mascot for GamerGaters on 4chan, and her portrayal tells us a lot about what Gamers wanted women to be. She was an anthropomorphized avatar of the /v/ (Vidya) community on 4chan, created in response to a totally separate Zoe Quinn controversy surrounding game jams (events in which developers race to make weird and wacky games). She was used in propaganda as a champion of ‘free speech’.

You see, one of the many debates (and we must use this term loosely) that GamerGate created was that of 'politics' in gaming. Representation was increasing of LGBT people, POC and women in games, and some players insisted that these inclusions were politically motivated. They claimed that games as a medium were not meant to be 'political', and forcing 'politics' into the games was a negative thing. They wanted a return to the 'non-political' status quo - and it just so happened that the status quo was white straight American men (usually with guns). Because they themselves were mostly white straight American men, it never struck them as political for a game to feature a white straight American man, it was simply normal. The default. And any deviation from this was labelled as 'political'.

Of course, any intelligent person can see through this to its deeper meaning - these players didn't want gays, women, and non white characters in their games because they were prejudiced. All media is political in some way. Even games which try not to be political.

This is what GamerGate boils down to - a war over the status quo. One side pushing for change, the other pushing to stop that change.

Vivian never mentioned her gender, her ideas or her politics when she played a game - you could play against her and mistake her for a guy. Rather than disrupt the status quo by existing, she allowed it to absorb her. And that's what Gamers wanted from all minorities - they were welcome as long as they didn't disrupt games as a haven where everything is catered to the default player, a white straight American man. Vivian was a 'real gamer' because she embraced the default. Anyone who rejected that default was a fake gamer, whose love of games was a lie, and whose real purpose was sabotage.

This links in pretty heavily to the #NotYourShield movement, basically a platform for women, POC and LGBT Gamers who supported GamerGate and saw its opponents as exploiting them as a shield to deflect criticism. Ironically, GamerGate used these people as evidence that they were not prejudiced at all, in a very 'I'm not racist, my best friend is black' kind of way.

Penning the Playbook

GamerGate had found an effective way of tearing down its targets, and its playbook would come to include strategies like gaslighting, dogpiling, sea lioning, gish galloping, and dogwhistling - and would inform the strategies of the alt right. By creating a state of fear, where people are too scared to even speak against GamerGate, they were able to silence opposition. And unlike its opposition, who were very real and public figures, GamerGate was decentralised and anonymous, akin to a swarm with no individual leader or face, and which therefore was incredibly hard to defeat. This was never a two way street. Of course, GamerGate had its open and public supporters. Let's go through a few of these colourful characters now!

Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad)

Sargon is your standard basement dweller youtuber, the kind of guy who DESTROYS libs with FACTS and REASON. He gained a lot of traction from GamerGate, and he explains why here. You can kind of imagine him as a more extreme Ben Shapiro.

Richard Spencer

Another Nazi. Richard Spencer was a big supporter of GamerGate. You can look into himself if you like but frankly I don't want to do the research into him because that means I have to watch and read shit he has said. His main claim to fame is being the man who coined the term 'Alt Right'

John Bain (Totalbiscuit)

Totalbiscuit was a popular game critic who died of bowel cancer in 2018. He is widely credited with being the man who legitimised GamerGate. It should be pointed out that Bain was never a white supremacist or abuser or anything like that - and he is often wrongly characterised as being more extreme than he really is. He was conservative, aggressive and thin skinned, but he wasn't evil. To him, GamerGate was always about ethics in journalism, what defines a game, and politics in gaming. He had been an ethical crusader long before GamerGate, and so none of this is truly surprising. He was either incredibly naive or just wilfully ignored the fact that these online movements were just fronts. It is somewhat ironic how much he had in common with James Stephanie Sterling (once known as Jim Sterling before transitioning), another British pro-consumer activist and long-time collaborator, who was always on the total opposite end of the GamerGate spectrum. Indeed, most of John's closest associates were anti-GamerGate.

I met TB once at a convention and he seemed nice enough.

Milo Yiannopoulos

During his time working at Breitbart, Milo was an outspoken supporter of GamerGate. His big thing was that he was a gay right-winger, and he used his homosexuality to deflect criticism for his views. He has since been banned from basically every site possible. Like many others, he seemed somewhat right leaning at first, but gradually unveiled himself as a full on nazi.

Steven Jay Williams (Boogue2988)

Boogie is a youtuber who came to fame through the persona of 'Francis', in which he would put on a funny voice and rage about minor things. But gradually he became more popular just for being himself, and his own views. When GamerGate first emerged, Boogie tried to stay moderate, but his views got more and more extreme as time went on. In 2017, Boogie had a gastric bypass surgery, which made him lose weight. But after that, he revealed himself to be quite a nasty person.

Christina Hoff Sommers

Sommers is an author and philosopher of ethics, and a resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute. She is probably the most 'legit' of GamerGate's supporters, and has carved out a niche in making right wing talking points palatable to the average person, before they move on to the more extreme online figures.

EDIT: Steve Bannon

As a commenter pointed out to me, I've left out someone important. While Steve Bannon himself was not very strongly linked to GamerGate, he was the founder of the heavily right wing site Breitbart, which gave a platform to Milo Yiannopoulos and many others. Bannon would go on to play a pivotal role in the Trump presidency.

Sexism in Gaming Studios

While this is far removed from GamerGate, it's a case of 'the birds coming home to roost'. The movements that GamerGate helped to start have returned and taken many large game developers by storm in recent years. I thought I would go over some of them.

Part 1: The Fellowship of the Rats

The first big publisher to go under the magnifying glass was Ubisoft. In mid 2020 they came under fire for sexual harassment allegations.

Last month the company, one of the world’s largest video game publishers with a portfolio including Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry, launched a probe after allegations of sexual misconduct were shared online. Serge Hascoet, chief creative officer and the company’s second-in-command, has resigned, as has the human resources director, Cecile Cornet, and the managing director of the Canadian branch, Yannis Mallat, Ubisoft said on Sunday.

MANY of Ubisoft's executives were forced to stand down.

This video goes into a lot of detail on exactly how much of this abuse was covered up at Ubisoft.

Unfortunately a year later, Ubisoft had made minimal changes. Luckily for them, the spotlight would soon be stolen away.

Part 2: The Two Lawsuits

This particular controversy concerns Activision Blizzard. After a two year investigation, the company was found to have extreme harassment against women and minorities, and has discrimination baked into its terms and conditions of employment. Everything from compensation, assignment, promotion and termination is affected by gender. The entire company is governed by a 'Frat Boy Culture'. California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a lawsuit against them..

At first, Blizzard's president Allen Brack claimed no knowledge of this. But then numerous former and current Blizzard employees spoke up to support the accusations. They insisted that almost nothing was being done within the company to fix it. On 26 June, more than 800 employees (eventually as many as 2000) signed an open letter too their leadership demanding that Blizzard recognise the seriousness and show compassion for victims. When that didn't work, employees held a meeting and on 28 July, organised the Activision Blizzard Walk Out For Equality. Turnout exceeded two hundred.

Renowned scumbag Bobby Kotick released a statement describing Blizzard's earlier statement as 'tone deaf' and promised 'swift action'.

An article by Kotaku went into more detail on the infamous 'Cosby Suite', and revealed that Ghostcrawler (one a high-up on World of Warcraft) was on the list of guests.

Numerous developers left the company, either in protest or due to allegations against them. More and more horrible stories began to emerge, far worse than the original lawsuit had uncovered. Sponsors pulled out, investors filed a class action lawsuit toward the company, and Brack stepped down.

You can read more about it here

Hilariously, Blizzard also completely neutered any remotely sexual or flirtatious lines, emotes and jokes out of WoW.

Part 3: The Return of the Gamers

Since then, numerous other companies have been accused of similar problems. Paradox Interactive, SCUF, Insomniac Games, Bethesda. In fact, it might be easier to list the gaming companies that haven't had any allegations.

It turns out that the people who worked in these companies were often just as nasty as the fans.

Luckily, the reaction has been a far cry from GamerGate. On that, at least, we seem to have made some progress. And I suppose that's something to be optimistic about.

A Troubled Legacy

So what is the legacy of GamerGate? It never really 'concluded' or 'finished'. But if we zoom out on our scope a little, we see that it was just a tributary which flowed into the greater river of the alt-right. And from that river would spill forth Donald Trump, Pizzagate, Qanon, the Manosphere, and Incels. GamerGate was arguably just a microcosm of a much greater societal movement, not its cause, but it was the moment that young online conservatives began to push back against progressivism, and collectively organise. It was the moment where their techniques for censorship, propaganda and recruitment would be rewritten for the internet era. And it was the moment when thousands of online fascists looked around and realised their views weren't that rare after all.

The positive effects have been there too, however. The push back against Gamergate has definitely helped us recognise the dark corners of the internet, and also led to widespread changes in the industry. But the consequences of GamerGate have not yet fully shown themselves.

It's hard to say where it will all lead.

[just-antithings]

Anti really got Anita Sarkeesian s quote wrong. Instead of "It's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects.", they went "it's wrong to enjoy things I think are problematic and I believe no one is critical of bc I live in a bubble"

.

[vbartilucci]

It's very difficult to love something and still be able to admit that it has flaws.

To (almost) quote Anita Sarkeesian, "It's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy [something] while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects"

an ex-zionist jewish man recently went a bit viral on tiktok for sharing exactly how he sees zionism tie israel to the jewish identity and his personal experience with breaking away from it - I think it’s a really great watch.

He also made a follow up talking specifically about how he learned to humanise Palestinians, and a really integral part of it was his school, which would often bring in Palestinian speakers who’d share their perspective (here’s a link to it).

[mariaiscrafting]

i love reading your takes and opinions on things, i agree that people need to talk about problematic things people do (whether it’s on purpose or not) because YOU CAN ENJOY MEDIA WHILST ALSO CRTICISING IT and i think a lot of people in fandoms tend to forget that and instantly assume that anytime some *is* critical of something they have to immediately cancel it. which just isn’t true at all

i hope you enjoy the rest of your night/day :D !!

You see, this is a thing that I used to do. I used to be fully into cancel culture. I think what changed me was the cheating thing, when I realized that I couldn’t pretend wasn’t real anymore when faced with the cold, hard numbers and statistics, that Dream probably cheated. But I had already spent so many hours watching his content and starting to care about him and his friends and the Dream SMP. So I basically was forced to realize that yes, I can criticize entertainers and creators I like, and yes, I can think some of them are assholes or have some kinda flaw that I dislike, while still enjoying them and caring about them and engaging in their communities and with their content. Cancelling is just so... stupid, regressive, futile, and useless.

Anyways, I fricking love this quote from Anita Sarkeesian (one of the feminists behind Gamer Gate, who I have some beef with but still respect), and I will repeat it to anyone who will listen: “It's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects.” 

That’s basically my motto with the SMP and MCYT

[kuroopaisen]

not to throw my two cents /now/ but for shows like aot (I personally stopped after s2 and i havent rly considered picking it up again yet), there definitely are problematic elements and depictions that should be called out when necessary—and we need to especially listen to those whose identities were unfairly treated. anime and manga aren’t innocent of problems, as are the artists behind it :,)

I won’t lie, japan still continues to be sketchy w how they teach and treat their history, but ig we as watchers/readers these media can remain critical of what we consume ? the act of watching smth w fascist elements doesn’t mean you condone it ! and choosing not to watch or support (i find these to be different things) bc of those problematic elements is also valid.

oH and I personally don’t rly like aot either from what I’ve been seeing LMAO as a person who dedicated 2 years of high school to extensive studying of history it’s just :\\\\\\ I think all the points have been made by ppl before me, and by you!! 

hello miss yuki!! first of all, i think the idea that people can’t consume Problematic Media is. is stupid because. humans are capable of critical thinking DJLSDALKJ that’s like... our thing. and just because something’s ‘problematic’ doesn’t mean there’s nothing valuable to draw from it? and by that, i mean... sometimes i specifically seek out things i know i’ll disagree with so i can actually talk about it properly, instead of relying on heresay. 

i guess it’s like the jk r*wling thing. do i think people who enjoy harry potter are militant transphobes? no! do i think it’s a bit shifty to spend money on harry potter merch that isn’t secondhand and is therefore putting coins in miss transphobes pockets? yes! there’s difference between consuming and supporting for sure. 

people have complicated relationships with media and internet discourse tends to make things too black-and-white. where do we draw the line? does resonating with shinji’s story in neon genesis evangelion mean you now support sexualising underage girls? does enjoying harry potter mean you condone fatphobia? does enjoying my hero academia mean you hate the lower classes? 

but at the same time, if someone wants to steer clear of something because of those kinds of things, they absolutely have a right to and neither them nor their intelligence should be insulted for that. a lot of people like to throw around “oh you just don’t understand” as an insult and honestly, Shut Up. leave people be.

ANYWAY aot 

yeah a lot of my problems with aot come down to isayama using a metaphor that isn’t even his to draw on. even if the pernicious aspects are unintentional, they’re still harmful. and also, it’s pretty obvious that isayama’s done his research? with how well the story emulates certain facts in history (and even referencing the madagascar plan hh), there’s no way isayama doesn’t know what he’s talking about. and you can’t really brush up on your knowledge of wwii without the whole antisemitism thing, so... 

but i think an issue i have with a lot of the criticism towards aot is that it comes from a very Western perspective; and i get that to a degree, but it’s also important to think about where the author comes from and who he’s writing for. that doesn’t exonerate any of the problematic aspects to any degree, but context is. well, sometimes it’s everything 

for example, i don’t think the question is so much “is isayama a nazi” as it is “is isayama trying to justify japanese expansionism” because while both are awful, one question is more relevant to what he’s likely to believe (even in the infamous twitter screenshots, he pretty staunchly seems anti-holocaust). i think ethnocentric criticisms muddy the water. 

i’m a dual major in anthropology and history, and while that absolutely doesn’t give me authority, it means i tend to focus more on this sort of thing? there’s no way isayama could’ve known that attack on titan would become so... global? and an issue with episodic things of any nature is that it’s almost impossible to analyse them in their whole until it’s finished. aaaand in most cases, that takes years.

so regardless of what isayama intended, that means there are still right-wing groups that love aot and see it as a metaphor for the great replacement, or there’s people who see it as a justification to abandon pacifism, and so on. but there are also people who see it as a staunchly anti-war story, or a narrative about the cycle of hatred. 

YEAH w the watching vs. supporting, i’ve actually been streaming aot on gogoanime because i didn’t know what i’d think of it when i started, even though i have an animelab and crunchyroll subscription. the question is, am i giving it social capital by discussing it online? some would say yes (i’ve got a platform, and just talking about it in general gives it affluence), some would say no (even if i have a platform, it’s small in the grand scheme of things, and how many people are actually reading my mini essays?)

ANYWAY this is largely incoherent i’m so sorry sdalkjfslfkdj look after yourself!!  

[cacodaemonia]

We all know that the way Disney has treated John Boyega, Kelly Marie Tran, Oscar Isaac, and Naomi Ackie is unacceptable and they should be held accountable for their racist bullshit. I’m glad this GQ article is getting so much traction, and obviously the conversation needs to stay centered on voices like John’s.

I just want to point out one thing that is minor in comparison, but important for the mental health of fans when the companies or individuals responsible for creating things we love do something shitty. I only bring this up because I hate to see anyone feel guilty (or try to guilt-trip others) for enjoying some of the things Disney has made. When the world is such crap, we all need little things that make us happy. While we should always support those whose voices need to be heard, and criticize the unethical behavior of others, I just want to remind anyone who needs to hear it:

“It's both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects.” -Anita Sarkeesian

Okay, back to your regularly-scheduled fandom nonsense from me.